/Vcr^ii^ei  ^ : /),'c  ^ /iU^^^4>^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Getty  Research  Institute 


https://archive.org/details/electrumcoinageoOObret 


THE 

ELECTRUM  COINAGE  OF  LAMP8AKOS 


V^Y 

AGNES  BALDWIN 


THE  AMERICAN  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY 
BROADWAY  AT  156th  STREET 
NEW  YORK 
lau 


C.Z 


THE  J.  PAUL  GETTY  MUSEUM  LIBRARY 


THE  ELECTRUM  COINAGE  OE 
LAMPSAKOS 


The  total  output  of  electrum  coins  from  the  mint  of  Lampsakos  was 
insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  prolific  issues  of  Kyzikos,  Phokaia 
and  Mytilenai.  The  coinage  appears  to  have  been  limited  to  the  stater 
denomination,  judging  from  the  fact  that  no  subdivisions  of  the  stater 
have  come  down  to  us,^  and  that  no  mention  of  any  other  denomination 
occurs  in  literary  references  or  inscriptions.  Lampsakos  differs  in  this 
respect  from  most  of  the  other  electrum -issuing  cities  of  Asia  Minor 
which,  in  the  earliest  period,  issued  halves  and  thirds  of  staters,  as  well 
as  sixths  and  smaller  fractions,  and,  at  a later  period,  from  the  middle 
of  the  Sixth  Century  B.  C.  onwards,  struck  hektai,  or  sixths,  in  great 
numbers  and  also,  though  less  frequently,  various  smaller  denomina- 
tions.^ From  the  great  rarity  of  the  staters  extant,  and  the  entire  lack 

1 The  liekte  with  the  forepart  of  a winged  horse  to  the  left  (B.  M.  C.  Ionia,  pi.  I.  10;  Balje- 
lon,  Traits  II^,  pi.  II.  26)  does  not  belong  to  Lampsakos,  as  is  indicated  both  by  its  style  and 
weight  standard,  taken  in  conjunction,  and  by  the  incuse.  Babelon  has  suggested  Lampsakos  as 
the  possible  place  of  mintage  of  the  electrum  hemi-hektai  with  the  owl  type  (Traitd  II^,  p.  180, 
note  2,  and  pp.  137  ff.  nos.  208-210,  pi.  V.  23),  which,  he  thinks,  may  have  been  struck  there  by 
the  descendants  of  Hippias,  tyrant  of  Athens,  whose  family  was  allied  by  a marriage  tie  with  that 
of  Hippoklos,  tyrant  of  Lampsakos.  In  spite  of  the  Athenian  type,  and  the  fact  that  three  of  the 
six  known  specimens  were  found  in  Attika,  Babelon  inclines  to  seek  an  Asiatic  origin  for 
these  coins,  chiefly  on  account  of  their  Phokaic  weight.  But  the  weights  of  these  coins,  which 
are  Phokaic  hemi-hektai  of  ca.  1.36  grams,  giving  a stater  of  ca.  16.32  gr. , do  not  conform  to  the 
standard  used  for  electrum  at  Lampsakos  (i.  e.  coins  of  the  regular  issues,  PI.  I)  which  was  a lighter 
one,  called  by  Babelon,  “ Phokaic  reduced,”  with  a stater  of  15.36  gr.  maximum. 

^ The  ancient  Ionian  and  Lydian  electrum  coinages  of  the  Seventh  and  Sixth  Centuries  B.  C. 
include,  besides  staters,  also  halves,  thirds,  hektai  and  smaller  divisions  down  to  one  ninety-sixth 
of  a stater.  Kyzikos  issued  in  the  earliest  period,  ca.  600-550  B.  C.,  staters,  sixths,  twelfths, 
twenty-fourths  and  forty-eighths,  but  the  two  latter  divisions  are  rare,  though  the  twelfth  is  common. 
During  the  long  period  of  the  abundant  issues  of  staters  ca.  550-330  B.  C.,  the  hekte  was  the  prin- 
cipal divisional  coin  (see  the  table  in  H.  von  Fritze’s  Die  Elecktronpragung  von  Kyzikos,  Komisma 
VII.  p.  34).  It  is  remarkable  to  note  that  the  hekte  was  less  commonly  struck  during  the  iieriods 
475-410  B.  C.  and  410-330  B.  C.  than  in  the  two  preceding  periods.  The  explanation  of  this 
more  restricted  output  of  hektai  may  be  that  Kyzikos  entered  into  a mutual  undertaking  with 
Phokaia  and  Mytilenai  whereby  the  latter  mints  were  to  supply  hektai,  mainly,  and  Kyzikos,  the 
large  quantity  of  staters,  needed  for  the  commerce  of  Asia  Minor.  Staters  of  Phokaia,  neverthe- 
less, though  known  to  us  by  only  one  extant  type,  dated  ca.  600  B.  C.  (Babelon,  Traits  II^,  pi.  IV. 


2 


The  ELECTRUJr  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


of  a divisional  coinage,  the  electrum  issues  of  Lampsakos,  like  those  of 
Chios,  with  which  the  former  correspond  in  period,  or  rather  periods, 
must  have  been  of  an  occasional  and  restricted  nature,  whereas  the 
coinages  of  Kyzikos,  Phokaia  and  Mytilenai  formed  a sort  of  interna- 
tional currency.  The  pure  gold  staters  of  Lampsakos  of  the  Fourth 
Century  are  reckoned  as  rare  among  Greek  coins,  but  in  view  of  the 
forty  different  obverse  types, ^ and  one  hundred  and  thirty  odd  sj^ecimens 
which  have  survived,  this  coinage  would  appear  to  have  been  relatively 
common  when  contrasted  with  the  fourteen  varieties  and  forty  or  so 
examples  of  the  electrum  coins  extant. 

It  is  this  scarcity  of  the  coins  coupled  with  their  infrequent  and 
scattered  publication  which  has  doubtless  led  to  the  wide  divergence  on 
the  ])art  of  numismatic  authorities  regarding  the  exact  date  of  the 
staters.  Percy  Gardner  considered  that  the  coins  were  all  of  a single 
])eriod  which  he  designated  as  the  latter  half  of  the  Fifth  Century  B.  C.^ 
Babelon  has  placed  all  of  the  staters  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  Sixth 
Century.^  Head’s  view,  with  which  Wroth  concurred,  is  that  the  coins 
were  issued  during  the  period  “ Circ.  B.  C.  500-450,  and  later. All 
of  these  writers  have  assumed  that  the  coins  belong  to  one  period  only, 
i.  e.  were  either  of  a single  issue,  as  Gardner  expressly  states,  or  formed 
a continuous  series  extending  over  a number  of  years.  This  view  seems 
to  me  erroneous,  and  partly  responsible  for  the  great  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  dates  assigned  by  the  above-mentioned  writers.  The  dating 
of  Head  and  Wroth,  which  is  rather  elastic,  in  a way  reconciles  the  two 
widely  divergent  dates,  last  quarter  of  the  Sixth  and  latter  half  of  the 
Fifth  Centuries.  In  my  opinion,  it  covers  the  whole  period  of  the 
emission  of  electrum  at  Lampsakos,  and  is  only  misleading  if  under - 

;i,  5)  can  have  been  by  no  means  nncommon,  for  they  are  mentioned  in  Attic  inscriptions  of  the 
early  Fourth  (Jentury  (I.  G.  ii.  (552,  1.  42,  ^u/cal/cw  o-rar^pe:  II,  also  nos.  649,  660)  and  in  literary 
sources,  Demosth.  XL.  .86  (rpia/cotrions  o-rar^pas  ^coKaeh)  and  Thuk.  IV.  52  (5i<7xiX£Ods  (TTaTTjpas  $u/caiVas). 
.Vt  Mytilenai,  also,  staters  were  issued,  but  are  known  to  ns  by  a single  specimen,  only,  of  the 
])eriod  440-400  B.  C.  (B.  M.  C.  Troas,  etc.,  pi.  XXXII.  1.  Xum.  Chron.,  1S90,  pi.  XIX.  16, 
Traitd  II'^,  pi.  CLIX.  I).  Of  Chios,  whose  electrum  coinage,  aside  from  the  Fifth-Century  issue 
represented  by  the  unique  example  in  the  Berlin  Museum  (Rev.  Xum.,  1864,  pi.  I.  4,  Traitd  IF, 
pi.  VIII.  9),  is  not  later  than  ca.  500  B.  C.,  only  staters  are  known.  The  twelfth  in  the  Paris 
cabinet  (Traitd  IF,  pi.  A^IIl.  7),  with  the  supposed  type  of  Sphinx  seated  to  right,  iii  front  of 
which  is  X,  has  been  “ read  upside  down,”  for  the  type  is  in  reality  a griffin  seated  to  the  left, 
in  front  of  which  is  x or  -p,  as  on  the  twenty-fourth  in  the  B.  M.  Cat.  Ionia,  pi.  T.  15. 

> Baldwin,  An  Unedited  Gold  Stater  of  Lampsakos,  Zeit.  fiir  Xum.,  1914,  pp.  1-14. 

- The  Gold  Coinage  of  Asia  before  Alexander  the  Great,  Proceedings  of  the  British  Acad- 
emy, vol.  III.  1908,  p.  20,  and  Coinage  of  the  Athenian  Empire,  Jour.  Hell.  Studies,  1918,  p.  155. 

“ Traitc  IF,  pp.  181 -18(5. 

Hist.  Xum-.,  p.  529.  Wroth,  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  p.  xx,  and  p.  79. 


The  Eeectrum  Coinage  of  Lames akos 


3 


stood  as  embracing  half  a century  or  more  during  which  electrum  was 
minted  in  an  unbroken  series. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  there  were  two  separate  and  distinct  issues  of 
electrum  at  Lampsakos  between  which  a considerable  number  of  years 
must  have  elapsed.  For  the  earlier  issue,  Babelon’s  date  “vers  513” 
accords  well  with  the  style  of  the  most  primitive  staters  of  the  first 
issue,  while  for  the  staters  of  more  developed  style  belonging  to  the 
second  issue,  Gardner’s  date,  ca.  434  B.  C.  is  approximately  correct,  and 
it  is,  furthermore,  precisely  the  one  originally  suggested  by  Head  when 
he  first  published  the  staters  of  this  type.^ 

The  first  issue  (nos.  1-13,  pi.  I.  1-11,  and  figs.  1-2)  includes  coins 
of  decidedly  archaic  style,  which,  as  I hope  to  demonstrate,  cannot  be 
much  later  than  500  B . C . , while  the  earliest  of  them  may  go  back  to 
525  B.  C.  These  coins  hitherto  have  been  imperfectly  described,  and 
are  of  extreme  rarity.  The  type  is  always,  on  the  obverse,  a forepart 
of  a winged  horse  to  the  left,  enclosed  in  a vine  wreath,^  and,  on  the 
reverse,  a square  incuse  quartered.  These  earlier  coins  of  which  some 
thirteen  examples  are  known  to  me,  form  a continuous  series  in  which 
may  be  traced  a gradual  development  of  style.  The  vine  wreath  is 
often  sketchily  introduced,  and,  at  times,  merely  traces  of  it  are  dis- 
cernible, portions  of  the  branch  from  which  hang  bunches  of  grapes 
above,  before  and  below  the  horse,  which  in  some  instances  have  been 
mistaken  for  obscure  symbols.^ 

The  second  issue  (PI.  I.  12a-12k)  comprises  coins  of  similar  type, 
but  of  considerably  more  advanced  style.  The  vine  wreath  is  well 
elaborated,  showing  branch  and  tendrils,  leaves  and  bunches  of  grapes. 
Below  the  half -horse  is  the  letter  I.  All  of  the  known  specimens  ema- 
nate from  a single  pair  of  dies.  This  uniformity  of  type  and  the  com- 
parative commoness  of  the  coin  (there  were  in  all  about  twenty  speci- 
mens in  the  hoard  when  seen  by  Head,  Num.  Chron.  loc.  cit.)^  has 
made  this  I stater  a thoroughly  familiar  coin . 

1 On  a Recent  Find  of  Staters  of  Cyzikos,  etc.,  Num.  Chron.,  1870,  pp.  277  ff.,  and  Additional 
Notes,  etc.,  op.  cit.  1877>,  pp.  lf>9  ff.  These  are  the  staters  of  our  Period  II  which  have  the  letter 
I beneath  the  horse,  and  are  apparently  the  only  staters  that  Gardner  took  into  account  when  pro- 
])osing  his  date.  Head  (II.  N^.,  p.  529)  does  not  distinguish  between  two  sejiarate  issues,  nor 
does  he  make  any  specific  reference  to  the  staters  of  this  find.  Ilis  description  of  the  whole  class 
of  staters  which  he  would  definitely  attribute  to  Lampsakos,  ca.  500-450  R.  C.  and  Idler,  is  “ Fore- 
part of  winged  horse;  sometimes  in  vine-wreath.  Quadripartite  incuse  square [Rabelon, 

Traitd,  pi.  VIII.  1-4.]  El.  Stater,  237  grains.’’ 

An  exception  to  this  description  is  no.  1,  PL  I.  1,  on  which  the  vine  is  lacking. 

® R.  M.  C.  Mysia,  p.  79,  no.  7 “ symbol  obscure”  = PI.  I.  2.  Cat.  Philipsen,  no.  1785,  pi. 
XXI  “ oben  Lyra,  unten  undeutliches  Zeichen  ” = no.  2,  fig.  1.  Regling.  Samm.  Warren,  p.  240, 
no.  1590,  pi.  XXXVI,  “ oben  und  unten  ein  undeutliches  Zeichen  ” = PI.  1.  9. 


4 


The  P]le(  TUinr  Cotxage  of  Lampsakor 


Tlie  coins  of  the  first  period,  on  the  other  hand,  are  so  rare  as  to  be 
])nt  little  known.  Brandis  (Mlinz-Mass-u.  Gewichtswesen  (1866)  p. 
dSf))  was  the  first  writer  to  mention  an  electrum  stater  of  Lampsakos.^ 
In  1867,  the  Dnpre  catalogue  described  another  specimen.  The  former 
])iece  was  the  de  Lnynes  coin  (PI.  I.  10)  which  was  also  noted  by  Head 
(Xnm.  Chron.  1876,  p.  287),  who  raised  the  question  as  to  whether  it 
might  not  he  identical  with  the  staters  of  the  I type  which  he  was  then 
for  tlu‘  fii*st  time  ]mhlishing.  Six,  in  a letter  to  Head  {op.  cit.  1877,  pp. 
16f)ff.),  re])lied  that  the  de  Lnynes  coin  differed  from  the  i type  and 
that  he  knew  of  but  three  exam^des  of  this  earlier  type,  (1)  the  de 
Jjuynes  (‘oin,  (2)  the  Dupre  specimen  just  noted,  and  (8)  a coin  in  his 
own  ('olledion  weighing  15.19  gr.  In  1882  the  Bompois  catalogue  (nos. 
1889  and  1890)  contained  descriptions  of  two  staters  of  Lampsakos 
which  have  iiever  before  been  illustrated.  They  were  formerly  in  the 
d(‘  Hii’sch  (‘olledion  and  are  now  in  the  Brussels  cabinet  (PI.  I.  8,  4). 
Th(‘  Whittall  (*atalogue  in  1884  described  another  stater  which  was  ac- 
(luired  by  the  British  Museum  (B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  no.  6,  pi.  XVIII.  7 = 
PI.  I.  1).  This  coin  was  described  and  figured  by  Head  (Num.  Chron. 
1887,  pi.  XI.  89),  the  first  publication  in  which  one  of  these  rare  coins 
was  illustrated.  A se(‘ond  stater  of  different  style,  also  in  the  British 
Museum,  was  at  the  same  time  figured  by  Head  {op.  cit.  pi.  XI.  90  = 
PI.  I.  11).  The  B.  M.  C.  Mysia  (1892)  illustrated  the  Whittall  coin, 
hut  not  this  other  s])ecimen  (Sava)‘\  A third  example  in  the  London 
cahimT  (B.  M.  C.  no.  7)  is  here  published  for  the  first  time  (PI.  I.  2). 
In  18i)5,  a single  s])ecimen  turned  up  in  the  Ashburnham  catalogue 
(no.  14i),  ]A.  IV)  which  is  now  in  the  Yakountchikoff  collection  (PI.  I. 
8i.  The  Inv.  Waddington  (1897,  no.  855)  contained  the  coin,  formerly 
Diijav,  which  was  known  to  Six  (PI.  1.7).  In  1906,  Regling  published 
the  G]*ecnw(*ll-\Vai*i*en  s])e(‘imen,  now  in  Boston  (Samm.  Warren,  no. 

pi.  XXX \d  ==  PI.  I.  9),  and  in  1907,  Babelon  published  the  de 
Lnynes  coin  whi(*h,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  first  example  to  become 
known,  and  also  th(‘  Waddington  coin  (Traite  IP,  nos.  828,  825,  pi. 
VIII.  1,  2 PI.  I.  7,  10). 

Finally,  in  1!)0!),  the*  Phili])sen  (‘atalogue  contained  a highly  interest- 
ing statei’  (no.  1785,  pi.  XXI  = no.  2,  Fig.  1)  which  has  just  now  reap- 

> 'riic  stat«Ts  im-ntioiKMl  l)y  Sostiiii  (Stateri  Aiitichi  (LSI?)  p.  (>2,  no.  1,  p.  (y2,  no.  2, 

pi.  \'I.  1 1 in  ill**  \'i«‘Miia  ainl  .Mnnidi  cabinets  ai’(*  stators  bearing  the  balf-horse  of  Lampsakos,  but 
uf  .Milf.^ian  weit^bt  ( 1».  .M.  (’.  .Mysia  j).  7S,  1 and  note  and  pp.  XX,  XXI),  and  will  not  be  discussed 
in  tbi'  pap'T  until  (be  enins  of  I'eriods  I and  II  bav<‘  Ixurn  consider(;d. 

'Pin*  ••  >ava”  eoin  wbieb  is  no.  !»  in  the  IL  M.  Cat.  is  there  incorrectly  classed  as  another 

example  (»f  tin*  I tyjie. 


The  Electku.m  Coixacje  of  Lamfsakos 


0 


peared  in  a sale  catalogue  (Cat.  Pro  we,  no.  588,  j)l.  XIII.  Egger  XLYI, 
Vienna,  May,  1914) . Six’s  coin  is  the  only  one  noted  in  the  earlier  liter- 
ature accessible  to  me  which  I have  been  unable  to  trace.  Besides  the 
above-mentioned  ten  staters  (i.  e.  omitting  the  Six  coin),  the  present 
catalogue  contains  a stater  recently  acquired  by  M.  R.  Jameson  (PI.  I.  5) , 
a similar  coin  (PL  I.  6)  formerly  in  the  collection  of  M.  (1.  Bnrel  (Cat. 
Burel,  no.  265,  pi.  V.  Feuardent,  Paris,  June,  1918) , and  a stater  in  the 
collection  of  Sir  Hermann  Weber  (no.  10,  fig.  2) . Of  the  thirteen  coins 
illustrated  on  PI.  I.  1-11  and  in  figs.  1 and  2 of  the  text,  nos.  8-  6 (PI. 
I.  2-5) , and  no.  10,  fig.  2,  have  never  before  been  illustrated.  Nos.  8-6 
are  of  unusual  interest  because  they  bear  Greek  letters  on  the  design  of 
the  obverse  type,  or  in  a square  of  the  reverse,  or  both,  which  are  prob- 
ably the  initials  of  monetary  magistrates,  like  the  letter  I on  the  coins 
of  Period  II.  If  the  date  which  is  here  assigned  to  the  coins  of  Period 
I be  correct,  the  appearance  of  magistrate’s  marks  on  a part  of  the  ty])e, 
or  on  the  coin  at  all,  at  such  an  early  epoch,  would  constitute  a notalJe 
exception  to  the  rule  in  Greek  numismatics.  The  following  is  a de- 
scription of  the  electrum  staters  of  the  regular  issues  of  Lampsakos. 


PERIOD  I. 

End  of  the  Sixth  and  Beginning  of  the  Fifth  Centuries  B.  C. 

GROUP  I. 


Reverse,  with  incuse  square  divided  into  four  equally  sunk  conq)art- 
ments. 

A.  Obverse,  with  a pointed  amphora  above  the  half -horse  ; tvi)e 


not  enclosed  in  a vine  wreath. 

t.  Forepart  of  a winged  horse  L,  round 
wings,  feathered,  1.  raised,  r.  lowered  ; 1. 
wing  in  three  sections,  the  one  joining  the 
body  granulated,  the  middle  one  narrow 
and  barely  differentiated  from  the  last  row 
of  dots  of  the  first  section,  the  third  sec- 
tion curving  back  convexly,  towards  the 
head ; r.  wing  in  one  section ; two  rows 
of  dots  across  the  neck  parallel  to  the  left 
wing;  no  line  at  the  termination  of  the 
body:  above,  a pointed  amphora  lying 

slantwise. 


Incuse  square  divided  by  two  raised 
lines  into  four  square  compartments, 
equally  depressed. 


EL.  19mm.  15.05  gr.  London  (Whittall).  Plate  I.  1. 

Cat.  Whittall  no.  780  (S.  AV.  & H.  London,  1884).  Head,  Xnm.  Chron.  1887,  p.  297,  no.  89, 
pi.  XI.  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  p.  79,  no.  6,  pi.  XVIII.  7.  Babelon,  Traite  IP,  no.  .■)24. 


The  E[>E(jtiium  CoixAciE  of  LAjrrsAKos 


B.  Obverse,  without  symbol;  type  enclosed  in  vine  wreath. 

2,  Similar  ; wings,  rows  of  dots,  etc.,  as  Similar, 
before  ; enclosed  in  a vine  wreath  of  which 
a part  with  a cluster  of  grapes  above  the 
horse,  is  plainly  visible : no  symbol. 

EL.  20mm.  15.10  gr.  (formerly  Philipsen)  fig.  1. 

Cat.  Philipsen,  no.  1785,  pi.  XXI  (Ilirsch  XXV,  Munich,  1909).  Cat.  Prowe,  no.  588,  pi. 
XIII  (Egger  XLVI,  Vienna,  May,  1914). 


Fig.  1. 


GROUP  II. 

Reverse,  with  incuse  square  consisting  of  alternately  raised  and  sunk 
compartments . 

Obverse,  with  type  enclosed  in  vine  wreath,  and  sometimes  bearing 
magistrate’s  signs,  in  the  form  of  initials  or  monograms,  on  the  neck  of 
the  horse,  or  in  one  of  the  squares  of  the  reverse,  or  both,  (nos.  3-G) ; 
and  in  the  form  of  a symbol  above  the  horse  (n.  8) . 


3.  Similar;  wings,  etc.,  as  before,  mid- 
dle section  of  1.  wing  well  differentiated  ; 
of  vine,  only  the  bunch  of  grapes,  above 
horse,  is  visible : on  horse’s  neck  G- 

EL.  21mm.  15.13  gr.  London. 


Incuse  square  divided  by  two  ]'aised 
lines  into  four  compartments,  two  of  which, 
diagonally  opposed,  are  less  deeply  sunk 
than  the  other  two. 

Plate  I.  2. 


n.  M.  C.  Mysia,  p.  79,  no.  7.  Babelon,  Traite  Iiq  no.  824. 


4.  Similar  description  and  style  ; raised 
line  at  termination  of  horse’s  body.;  vine 
wreath  visible  above  and  before  horse ; 
bunch  of  grapes  above  horse,  incompletely 
indicated 

EL.  20mm.  15.21  gr.  Brussels  (de  Hirsch). 

Cat.  Bompois,  no.  1890  (Paris,  1882). 

5.  Similar  description  and  identical 
style ; al)Ove  horse,  bunch  of  grapes  which  | 
in  its  form  resembles  a tri-lobed  leaf,  thus,  , 

< ; on  horse’s  neck  p. 

EL.  20mm.  15.27  gr.  Brussels  (de  Hirsch). 

Cat.  Boinpois,  no.  1889  (Paris,  1882). 

6.  Similar  description  and  style;  vine  Similar 
with  bunches  of  grapes  above  and  before  ment  /y. 
horse:  on  horse’s  neck i 

EL.  20mm.  15.00  gr.  .Jameson,  Paris. 


Similar ; in  upper  right-hand  compart- 
ment 


Plate  I.  3. 


Similar,  but  no  monogram. 


Plate  I.  4. 


in  lower  left-band  compart- 


Plate  I.  5. 


The  Electrum  Cohstage  of  Lampsakos 


Similar,  but  no  monogram. 


Plate,  I.  6. 


7.  Similar  description  and  style  ; vine 
wreath  as  before ; a bit  of  the  tendril  is 
also  visible  below  ; at  termination  of  body, 
a raised  line  and  row  of  four  dots : no 
monogram  or  letter. 

EL.  20mm.  gr.  (formerly  G.  Burel). 

Cat.  Burel,  no.  26.5,  pi.  V (Feuardent,  Paris,  June,  1913). 

8.  Similar  description  and  style ; vine  Similar, 
wreath  more  fully  indicated ; bunch  of 
grapes  visible  before  horse : above  horse, 
vase  (skyphos?). 

EL.  20mm.  14.99  gr.  (worn).  Paris  ( Waddingtori).  Plate  I.  7. 

Cat.  Duprd,  no.  263  (Paris,  1S67).  Babelon,  Tnv.  Wadcl,  no.  8-55,  and  Traitd  lib  no.  323, 
pi.  VIII.  I. 


9.  Similar  description  but  less  rude 
style ; middle  section  of  1.  wing  broader, 
and  wider  at  the  top  than  at  bottom ; 
raised  line  at  termination  of  body,  placed 
a little  in  from  edge : bunch  of  grapes 
above  horse  faintly  discernible ; the  two 
globules  above  1.  wing  accidental  (?) ; 
horse  bridled  (?)  : no  symbol. 


Similar. 


Plate  I.  8. 


EL.  20mm.  15.36  gr.  Yakountchikoff,  St.  Petersburg  (formerly  Ashburnham). 

Cat.  Ashburnham,  no.  149,  pi.  IV  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  189.5). 

10.  Similar  description  and  style  ; vine  Similar, 
wreath  visible  above  and  before  horse ; 
very  similar,  though  different,  die ; on  this 
coin  the  “ globules,”  albeit  rather  unintel- 
ligible, appear  to  belong  to  the  representa- 
tion of  the  vine. 

EL.  20mm.  15.35  gr.  Sir  H.  Weber,  London,  fig.  2. 


Fig.  2. 


n.  Similar  description  and  style  ; r.  Similar, 
wing  in  tioo  sections ; vine  wreatli  barely 
visible  ; horse  bridled  (?). 

EL.  22mrn.  15.05  gr.  Boston  (Greenwell-Warren). 
Regling,  Sainni.  Warren,  p.  240,  no,  1.590,  pi.  XXXVI. 


Plate  I.  9. 


8 


The  Electru.m  Coinage  of  Laaipsakos 


Plate  I.  10. 
no.  32.'5,  pi.  VIII.  2. 


12.  Similar  description,  but  finer,  more  Similar, 
careful  style ; line  at  termination  of  body 
(?)  ; vine  wreath  visible  above  and  below 
horse ; bridle  visible. 

EL.  20mm.  15.15  gr.  Paris  (de  Luynes). 

Ijraiulis,  Miiiiz-  Mass-n.  Gewiclitswesen.  p.  389.  liabeloii,  Traitii  II^, 
f3.  Similar  description  and  style ; at  Similar, 
termination  of  body,  a row  of  four  dots 
between  two  raised  lines;  vine  wreath  more 
fully  given,  before  and  below  horse  ; above 
liorse,  bunch  of  grapes;  horse  is  bridled. 

EL.  20mm.  15.-35  gr.  London  (Sava). 

Head,  Xmn.  Cliroii.  1887,  p.  297,  no.  90,  pi.  XI. 

Traitd  Ilfi  no.  .328. ^ 

^ A stater  of  Per.  I whicli,  by  reason  of  its  weight,  1.5.19  gr.,  does  not  seem  to  be  identical 
with  any  of  the  above  coins,  is  the  one  formerly  in  the  Six  collection  (Xum.  Chron.  1877,  p.  171). 
.Vnother  stater,  apparently  also  distinct  from  the  I type,  is  mentioned  in  the  Cat.  Montagu 
(First  Series,  no.  518,  S.  W.  & II.,  London,  March,  1890),  as  weighing  15.48  gr.,  a weight  which, 
if  correctly  given,  would  be  somewhat  in  excess  of  the  norm. 


B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  p. 


Plate  I.  11. 
79,  no.  9.  Babelon, 


PERIOD  II. 

ca.  450  B.  C. 


L Eorepart  of  a winged  horse  1.,  round 
wings,  feathered,  1.  raised,  r.  lowered  ; 1. 
wing  in  three  sections,  the  one  joining  the 
body  granulated,  the  middle  one  of  about 
even  width,  the  third  one  curving  back 
convexly,  toward  horse’s  head  ; r.  wing  in 
one  section ; two  rows  of  small  dots  across 
neck,  lower  row  disappearing  under  wing; 
two  raised  lines  at  termination  of  body ; 
the  whole  enclosed  in  a vine  wreath,  from 
the  branch  of  which  depend  leaves,  above 
and  before  horse,  bunches  of  grapes,  right 
and  left,  and  tendril,  below:  beneath  horse, 
within  the  wreatli,  I. 

EL.  lH-20nnn.  15.02-15.33  gr. 


Incuse  square  divided  by  two  raised 
lines  into  four  compartments,  two  of  which, 
diagonally  opposed,  are  less  deeply  sunk 
than  the  other  two. 


Plate  IT.  12a-12k. 


a.  15.15  gr.  Jameson,  Paris. 

Cat.  .lameson,  no.  1432,  pi.  LXXIII. 

1).  15.31  gr.  Boston  (Greenwell-Warren). 

Samm.  Warren,  no.  1502,  ))I.  XXXVI. 


The  Eekctruji  Coinage  of  Lamps akos 


9 


c.  15.30  gr.  Paris. 

Num.  Chron.  1876,  pi.  VIII.  31.  Babelon,  Traite  IP,  no.  327,  pi.  VIII.  4. 

d.  15.27  gr.  London. 

Nimi.  Chron.  1876,  pi.  VIII.  31.  B.  M.  C.  IVIysia,  p.  79,  pi.  XVIII.  8. 

e.  15.25  gr.  Berlin. 

f.  15.21  gr.  Brussels  (du  Clmstel). 

g.  15.18  gr.  Paris. 

Babelon,  Traite  II\  no.  326,  pi.  VITI.  3. 

h.  15.25  gr.  Cambridge  (McClean). 

ex  Montagu  Coll.  Private  Sale  of  Duplicates,  1894. 

i.  15.02  gr.  Newell,  New  York  (ex  Pliilipsen). 

Cat.  Philipsen,  no.  1786,  pi.  XXI  (Ilirsch,  Munich,  1909). 

].  15.33  gr.  Yakountcliikoff,  St.  Petersburg. 

k.  gr.  Munich. 

l.  15.33  gr.  New  York,  Metropolitan  Mnsenm  (Ward  ex  Greenwell). 

Cat.  Ward,  no.  610,  pi.  XV. 

in.  gr.  The  Hague.  (Six). 

n.  15.25  gr.  Sir  H.  Weber,  London. 

o.  15.13  gr.  (formerly  Warren). 

Samm.  W arren,  no.  1591,  pi.  XXXVI. 

p.  15.22  gr.  

Cat.  Late  Collector,  no.  324,  pi.  VII  (S.  W.  & II.,  London,  May,  1900). 

q.  gr. 

Cat.  Well-known  Collector,  no.  248,  pi.  II  (S.  W.  & II.,  London,  Dec.,  1894). 

r.  gr.  

Cat.  Strozzi,  no.  1582,  pi.  XI  (Sangiorgi,  Rome,  April,  1907). 

s.  15.22  gr.  

Cat.  O’Hagan  (ex  Balmanno),  no.  533,  pi.  IX  (S.  W.  A:  II.,  London,  May,  1908). 

t.  15.29  gr.  

Cat.  Bunbury  (Sec.  Port.),  no.  85,  pi.  I (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  Dec.,  1896). 

u.  15.25  gr.  

Cat.  Weber,  no.  2447,  pi.  XXXI V (Hirsch  XXI,  Munich,  Nov.,  1908). 

V.  14.96  gr.  

Cat.  Delbeke,  no.  180,  pi.  VI  (S.  W.  & II.,  London,  April,  1907). 
w.  15.30  gr.  

Cat.  Gr.  u.  Rom.  Miinzen,  no.  546,  pi.  XVII  (Egger,  Vienna,  Nov.,  1913). 

X.  15.15  gr.  — — 

Cat.  Lambros,  no.  666,  pi.  XI  (Ilirsch,  Munich,  Nov.,  1910). 

y-  gi'-  

Cat.  Durutle,  no.  506,  pi.  XI  (ex  Vente  du  Chastel,  1889,  no.  79)  (Eeuardent,  Paris, 
May,  1910). 


10 


The  Electrum  Coinage  oe  Laafpsakos 


z.  gr.  

Cat.  Vicomte  de  Sartiges  (1910),  no.  343,  pi.  XIX. 
aa.^  15.22  gr. 

Cat.  Hazeldine,  no.  6,  pi.  I (S.  W.  ct  II.,  London,  April,  1914). 

The  attribution  to  Lampsakos  of  the  coins  of  Periods  I and  II  has 
never  been  questioned,  the  identification  of  the  anepigraphic  coins  of 
this  city  being  made,  as  so  frequently,  by  means  of  the  later  coins  which 
bear  both  civic  device  and  the  city  name.  It  is  on  these  grounds  that 
the  earlier  numismatists,  from  Pembroke’s  time  to  that  of  Sestini  and 
Mionnet,  attributed  to  Lampsakos  the  gold  staters  of  the  Fourth  Cen- 
tury which  are  likewise  anepigraphic.  Staters  of  Lampsakos  XPTXO 
STATEPE2  AAM<PSAKENOI,  aTaTrjpe<;  Aafi-ylraKrjvoc,  are  mentioned  in 

the  Accounts  of  the  Athenian  Epistatai  of  ca.  484  B.  C,^  and  were  supposed 
by  Mommsen  (Monn.  Rom.  I.  10),  and  thereafter  by  Lenormant  (Rev. 
Num.  1868,  p.  423)  to  be  the  pure  gold  staters,  at  that  time  practically 
the  only  “gold”  issues  known.  Head,  however  (Num.  Chron.  1876, 
p.  290)  identified  the  “ gold  ” staters  of  these  Public  Accounts  with  the 
electrum  staters,  and  pointed  out  the  fact  that  word  xpva6<;  was  regularly 
employed  in  the  Accounts  for  the  mixed  metal, ^ and  that  the  staters  of 
pnre  gold  did  not  date  as  far  back  as  these  records.  It  is  of  course  the 
latter  coins  to  which  reference  is  made  in  a Boiotian  inscription  dating 
855-351  B.  C.,  containing  a list  of  the  contributions  to  the  cost  of  the 
Sacred  War,  see  11.  10,  11,  ^v^dvTLOi  ^popfrio)  Aap.'\p'aKavM  aT^areipa^]  o’yhoeLKOVTa 
ireTTapm,  dpyvpLco  ’At[tlko)  Spa]xpd<;  Sexae^.  “ Byzaiitioii  (contributed)  eighty- 
four  Lampsakene  gold  staters,  sixteen  Attic  silver  drachms,”  and  11.  20, 
21,  Bva^dvTLOL  [avve/3d\]ovdo  aWw?  irevTaKUT [(>)<;  araTelpa\<i  %pRo-]ia)?  Aapb-^aKavw'^  . . . ., 
‘ ‘ Byzaiition  contributed  further  five  hundred  gold  staters  of  Lamp  - 
sakos.”^ 

1 Tlie  twenty-seven  coins  here  enumerated  are  probably  the  actual  specimens  from  the  hoard 
described  by  Head  (Xum.  Chron.  1876  and  1877)  as  containing  twenty  or  more  examples.  Speci- 
men h.,  Cambridge,  would  seem  to  be  identical  with  q..  Well-known  Collector,  but  the  records  of 
the  McClean  collection  give  its  provenance  as  from  the  Montagu  sale,  of  same  year  as  Cat.  Well- 
known  Collector.  Specimen  p..  Late  Collector,  resembles  the  coin  figured  in  the  Delbeke  Cat.,  l)iit 
the  weights  given  are  different.  When  the  present  location  of  a given  example  is  unknown,  it  is 
manifestly  imiiossible,  at  times,  to  distinguish  it  with  certainty  as  a different  sijecimen. 

I.  G.  (=  Inscriptiones  Graecae)  i.  301-311. 

” In  I.  G.  i.  301  (cf.  Hill,  Sources  for  Greek  History  (ed.  1907),  p.  192,  IV.  84)  seventy 
“ gold  ” staters  of  Lampsakos  are  mentioned  in  company  with  twenty-seven  “ gold  ” staters  and 
one  hekte  of  Kyzikos.  The  statements  in  Traitd  p.  490,  491,  and  II^  pp.  1377ff.  follow  the  old 
vi(!W  of  Lenormant,  but  see  note  1 to  Traite  II'^  p.  1379. 

Hicks  and  Hill,  Historical  Greek  Inscriptions,  p.  261,  no.  135  = Dittenberger,  Sylloge-, 
120,  Mus.  Thebes,  no.  100.  I.  G.  vii.  2418.  Compare  also  I.  G.  vii.  2425. 


The  Electkum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


11 


From  these  Attic  and  Boiotian  inscriptions,  which  are  the  only 
ancient  sources  in  which  Lampsakene  staters  are  mentioned,’  and  from 
the  coins-  which  have  come  down  to  us,  we  learn  first,  that  electrum 
staters  of  Lampsakos  were  current  in  Athens  along  with  Kyzikenes  in 
the  second  half  of  the  Fifth  Century,  second,  that  the  gold  staters  of 
the  Fourth  Century  circulated  as  an  inter-state  currency  of  consider- 
able dimensions,  a sum  of  five  hundred  of  these  staters  being  paid  by 
Byzantion,  then  an  ally  of  Thebai,  towards  the  cost  of  the  Sacred  War. 
In  contrast  to  the  case  of  Kyzikos,  whose  extensive  electrum  coinage  is 
frequently  mentioned  by  ancient  writers,'  and  whose  silver  tetradrachms 
of  the  type  shown  in  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  pi.  IX.  8,  9 are  actually  described 
by  Suidas,  v.  Kvi^iK-qvol  ararripe^,  iio  literary  text  has  yet  been  cited  which 
contains  a reference  to  the  staters  of  Lampsakos. 

But,  even  if  the  inscriptional  records  above  cited,  were  not  in  exist- 
ence, the  testimony  of  the  coins  themselves  would  be  a sufficient  basis 
for  attribution . The  continuity  of  style  of  the  heraldic  device,  the 
forepart  of  a winged  horse,  which  appears  first,  as  an  obverse  type, 
directed  towards  the  left,  on  the  electrum  coins,  and  then  as  a reverse 
type,  turned  at  first  to  the  left,  and  later  to  the  right,  on  the  gold  series, 
and  subsequently  on  the  reverses  of  silver  and  bronze  issues,  is  too  strik - 
ing  to  admit  of  question.  On  unpublished  bronze  coins  with  the  head 
of  Nike  on  the  obverse  (type  of  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  pi.  XIX.  14,  but  earlier 
style)  which  are  in  the  Leake  and  McClean  collections  in  Cambridge, 
the  horse  of  the  reverse  might  have  been  struck  with  a reverse  die  used 
for  one  of  the  gold  staters  with  the  Aktaion  head,  so  similar  is  the  style. 
It  is  true  that  several  other  cities,  Adramyteion,  lolla  and  Thebe,  all  in 
Mysia,  employed  the  forepart  of  a winged  horse,  also  to  the  right  as  a 
civic  badge,  but  not  one  of  these  towns  is  of  sufficient  prominence,  his- 
torically, to  rival  the  attribution  to  Lampsakos  of  these  important  issues 
in  electrum  and  gold,  nor  would  the  style  warrant  it.^ 

The  weight  standard,  a local  one  peculiar  to  Lampsakos,  is  regarded 
by  Babelon  as  derived  from  the  Phokaic  standard  of  which  the  stater 
with  a maximum  weight  of  ca.  16.50  gr.  was  reduced  at  Lampsakos  to 
a stater  of  normal  weight  of  ca.  15.36  gr.  This  ‘ ‘ reduced  Phokaic  ’ ’ 

1 The  references  to  Herod.  VI.  37,  3S,  and  Xenophon,  Anab.  vii.  S.  3-6,  given  by  Babelon, 
Traitd  I^,  p.  491,  note  1 concern  Lampsakos,  but  not  Lampsakene  staters. 

^ Traitd  l^,  pp.  487ff.  and  the  references  there  given  to  Eupolis,  Xenoplion  and  Lysias. 
Compare  also  Demosthenes,  c.  Phormionem,  34.  23. 

® Cf.  Die  Antiken  Munzen  Mysiens,  p.  5,  where  v.  Fritze  suggests  that  the  occurrence  of  an 
identical  reverse  type  on  the  coins  of  these  four  cities  of  Mysia,  all  contemporaneous,  may  indi- 
cate a league. 


12 


The  Electrum  Coinage  oe  Lampsaivos 


standard  is  appropriate  to  a city  in  northern  Asia  Minor,  and  especially 
to  one  M^hich  was  originally  colonized  from  Phokaia. 

Another  reason  for  the  attribution  may  be  found  in  the  symbolism 
of  the  type  of  the  electrum  staters.  The  half-horse,  winged,  which  is 
])robably  a sea-horse  rather  than  a Pegasos,^  is  suitable  for  a seaboard 
town,  indicating  doubtless  commercial  prosperity,  and  the  vine  wreath 
around  the  type  expresses  most  directly  the  richness  in  vineyards  for 
which  Lampsakos  was  es])ecially  famed. ^ 


In  addition  to  all  of  the  above  evidence,  there  exists  a proxeny 
decree  of  Epidauros  belonging  to  the  Fourth  Century^  in  which  a cer- 
tain Theognetos  (or  Theophantos)  of  Lampsakos  is  mentioned,  and  at 
the  head  of  the  inscription  is  carved  the  winged  half -horse  (Fig.  3) , the 
‘‘  arms”  of  the  town  whose  citizen  was  honored  by  the  decree.  Similar 
honorific  inscriptions  headed  by  the  parasemata  of  the  towns  to  which 
the  persons  concerned  in  the. decree,  belonged,  are  by  no  means  uncom- 
mon.^ With  this  final  reinforcement  of  our  evidence,  the  attribution 
has  now  liecome  critically  unassailable. 

1 There  is  no  decisive  reason  for  this  conclusion,  for  I cannot  agree  witli  llegling  that  the 
proiniiieiit  forelock  is  the  distinctive  mark  of  the  sea-horse  (Samm.  Warren,  p.  158,  no.  1001,  note, 
apropos  of  the  llerakles  and  snakes  type  in  the  gold-stater  series).  Besides,  with  the  exception  of 
the  two  earliest  coins  of  the  gold  series,  this  accentuated  forelock  is  not  elsewhere  found.  Sestini 
called  the  horse  ‘‘ eqnus  marinns  alatus,”  just  as  he  called  the  half  winged  boar  ‘‘ aper  inarinns 
alatus,”  hut  in  both  cases  he  misunderstood  the  far  wing  for  a tail.  Whatever  the  original  signili- 
cance  may  have  been,  the  type  seems  to  have  been  finally  interpreted  as  a sea-horse  on  coins  of 
the  Imperial  age,  (.<10  of  Commodos,  .Julia  Domna,  and  Geta,  Cambridge).  This  isdoubtless  due  to  the 
progressive  degeneration  in  the  portrayal  of  the  far  wing,  which,  instead  of  being  represented  as 
beyond  the  body,  is  carelessly  joined  on  to  the  termination  until  it  resembles  generally,  the  tail  of 
a lish.  The  next  stej)  of  elongating  the  body  and  adding  lishes’  scales,  i^roduces  the  full-fledged 
“ hii)pocamp  ” of  the  Imperial  coins  cited. 

Strabo,  XIII.  12.  Diodorus,  XI.  57.  Thuk.  I.  DIS.  Plutarch,  Them.  29. 

■*  Perdri/.et.  Bull.  Corr.  Hell.  XX  (ISOb),  p.  55;i.  Cavvadias,  Fouilles  d’Epidaure  I,  p.  Ill, 
no.  274. 

‘.lour.  Hell.  Stud.  1904,  p.  Ath.  Mitt.  XVlIl,  p.  :5.57.  Macdonald,  Coin  Types,  pp. 

(iO-72. 


Thk  ELEPTuui\r  Coinage  of  Lajipsakos 


1 


In  the  evolution  of  the  reverse  type  of  the  electrum  coinage,  the 
incuse  with  equally  sunk  squares  (Per.  I,  nos.  1 and  2)  was  modified  to 
one  with  alternately  raised  and  depressed  squares  (Per.  I,  3-18),  an 
evolution  paralleled  by  that  of  the  reverses  of  other  series  (compare  the 
coins  of  Abdera,  Die  Antiken  Mtinzen  von  N ord - Griechenland , II,  I\ 
Thrakien,  p.  20,  and  of  Kyzikos,  Nomisma  VII,  p.  2,  et  passim) . On 
the  coins  of  Per.  II  the  incuse  shows  greater  regularity  than  in  the 
former  Period,  the  cross -lines  appearing  more  distinctly,  and  more 
regular,  and  the  sunk  squares  being  more  deeply  depressed,  a tendency 
which  has  already  become  manifest  towards  the  end  of  Period  I. 

Despite  the  general  air  of  relationship  between  the  coins  of  Periods 
I and  II  there  is  nothing  genuinely  archaic  in  the  style  of  the  I staters. 
The  rounded -end  wing  of  the  horse  curving  back  towards  the  head,^  is 
an  intentionally  preserved  archaic  characteristic,  modified  somewhat  in 
treatment  on  the  latter  coins,  but  still  retaining,  in  general,  the  old  as- 
pect. This  form  of  the  wing  persists  even  on  the  Fourth -Century  gold 
staters  though  subject  there  also  to  an  insensible  modification  during 
the  course  of  half  a century  or  longer.  The  horse’s  head  on  the  I 
staters  is  well-proportioned  to  the  body,  and  the  modelling  of  the  head 
and  neck,  the  fine  execution  of  the  mane  are  done  in  sufficiently  tree 
style.  Only  in  the  still  bulging  eye,  the  fierce  expression  of  the  mouth 
and  in  the  structure  of  the  legs  may  be  noticed  evidences  of  the  strong- 
style.  If  we  compare  these  horses  with  those  of  the  Parthenon  frieze, 
it  will  be  conceded,  I think,  that,  barring  the  slight  traces  of  archaic 
feeling  just  set  down,  the  style  is  about  the  same,  allowing  of  course  for 
differences  in  medium.^  On  grounds  of  style  alone  then  the  I staters 
may  confidently  he  dated  towards  the  middle  of  the  Fifth  Century,  or 
later. 

The  analysis  of  the  hoard  in  which  these  staters  were  found  sup- 
ports the  view  of  their  date  here  put  forward.  The  hoard  was  com- 
posed chiefly  of  Kyzikene  staters  ranging  in  date  from  475  to  410  B.  C., 
and  of  about  twenty  of  the  I staters  which  were  in  a better  state  of 
preservation  than  the  bulk  of  the  Kyzikenes,  at  the  probable  date  of 
the  deposit  of  the  hoard  ca.  410  B.  C.  The  lower  limit  assignable  to 
the  Kyzikene  coins  represented  in  the  find  is  merely  approximate,  and 
even  though  we  are  told  that  the  Lampsakenes  were  better  preserved 
than  the  majority  of  the  Kyzikenes,  I should  not  he  inclined  to  bring 

1 This  characteristic  treatment  of  the  wing  in  archaic  Greek  art  was  derived,  according  to  iVF. 
Georges  Perrot,  from  Phoenician  models,  (Perrot  et  Chipiez,  Ilistoire  de  I’Art,  IX,  p.  10). 

The  horses  on  the  coins  of  Per.  I should  be  compared  for  style  with  the  fragmentary 
Equestrian  Statues  found  on  the  Acropolis  at  Athens,  which  belong  to  the  period  ca.  .j20-.50!) 
B.  C.  (G.  Dickins,  Catalogue  of  the  Acropolis  Museum,  nos.  OOG,  GOT  and  700). 


14 


The  ELECTRUAf  Coinage  ok  La^ipsakos 


the  date  of  the  Lampsakene  staters  close  to  the  terminus  post  quern  of 
the  hoard  on  account  of  the  considerations  of  style  above  noted,  and 
because  it  would  seem  that  these  I staters  must  be  the  ^puaov  ararrjpe'i 
Aap.ypaKr}voi  referred  to  in  the  Accounts  of  the  Epistatai  of  ca.  434  B.  C. 
These  Accounts  begin  with  the  phrases  rrapa  tmv  TrpoTepcov  iiTLaraTwv  and 
7repLjev6p,evov  p.h  €k  tov  irporepov  ipiavrov,  that  is  to  say,  they  were  accouiits 
rendered  of  funds  accumulated,  and  we  are  therefore  bound  to  allow  a 
margin  of  ten  years  or  more  previous  to  the  archonship  of  Krates 
434/433  B.  C.,  in  which  the  second  stone  is  dated,  for  the  commence- 
ment of  the  issued  Now  it  can  scarcely  be  the  staters  of  Per.  I to  which 
the  Accounts  refer,  for,  as  we  have  said,  there  was  a decided  break 
between  the  two  issues,  and  the  staters  of  Per.  I.  do  not,  in  my  opinion, 
extend  down  very  much  later  than  500  B . C . As  the  first  issue  of  elec  - 
trum  was  a rather  limited  one,  these  earlier  staters  were  probably  out 
of  circulation  entirely  by  the  middle  of  the  Fifth  Century.  That  a con- 
siderable number  of  years  elapsed  between  the  coins  of  Per.  I and  those 
of  Per.  II  will  become  convincing  after  a study  of  Plate  I.  The  size  of 
the  horse’s  head  in  proportion  to  the  body,  the  position  of  the  tore -legs, 
treatment  of  the  wing,  etc.,  on  the  coins  of  these  two  groups,  and,  more- 
over, the  developed  character  of  the  decorative,  stylized  wreath  of  the  I 
staters,  point  to  a rather  wide  gap  between  the  two.  Even  between  the 
later  coins  of  Per.  I,  nos.  9-13  (PI.  I.  8-11  and  fig.  2)  and  the  coins  of 
Per.  II  (PI.  I.  12a-12k),  although  the  horse’s  head  is  not  so  dispropor- 
tionally  large  and  the  vine  wreath  gradually  becomes  more  definite, 
still  the  break  between  the  really  archaic  style  of  Per.  I and  the  ad- 
vanced transitional  style  of  Per.  II  is  most  sensibly  felt.  In  fact  the 
affinity  of  style  between  the  half -horses  of  the  I staters  and  those  of 
the  earliest  coins  in  the  gold  stater  series  is  greater  than  that  existing 
lietween  those  of  the  I staters  and  the  archaic  coins. 

Another  proof  that  all  of  the  electrum  coins  of  Lampsakos  do 
not  belong  to  a single  period  is  the  difference  in  the  composition  of 
the  metal,  the  coins  of  Per.  I being  less  pale  in  color  and  containing 
(‘onsequently  more  i)ure  gold  proportionally  than  the  I staters.^  The 

1 lloherts  and  Gardner,  Introduction  to  Greek  Epigraphy,  p.  315,  no.  115.  The  Record  of 
the  Epistatai  of  the  year  434-433  R.  C.  i.s  tlie  fourteenth  in  the  tinancial  series.  We  cannot,  of 
course,  know  whether  Lampsakene  staters  formed  part  of  the  balance  of  the  pre\dous  Accounts 
now  lost,  Imt  a decade  is  a fair  time  to  allow,  as  a minimum,  for  the  arrival  of  these  staters  in 
course  of  circulation  in  the  hands  of  the  Epistatai,  or  Overseers,  of  the  rarthenon  building  fund. 

■-*  The  staters  of  Periods  I and  II  are  not  included  in  Head’s  tabulated  statements  of  the 
siiecilic.  gravity  of  electrum  coins  (Num.  Chron.  1SS7,  pp.  277-308).  The  percentage  of  gold  indi- 
cated liy  the  color  test  would  he  about  GO  and  40  per  cent,  respectively,  while  the  staters  illustrated 
on  our  PI.  II.  contain  only  almut  30  per  cent.,  as  is  deduced  from  the  specific  gravity  of  specimens 
weighed  by  Ileail. 


The  Elph'tkuji  Coinage  of  Lajipsakos 


15 


latter  coins,  while  of  a less  dark  color  than  those  of  Per.  I,  are  not  of 
that  very  pale  electrum  composition  which  at  first  glance  looks  like 
silver,  characteristic  of  the  electrnm  coins  with  Lampsakene  types  but  of 
Milesian  weight  which  will  be  discussed  below  (PL  II.  l-3f) . 

The  I type  of  stater  has  been  compared  by  Head  and  Babelon  with 
the  interesting  electrnm  stater  of  Chios  in  the  Berlin  collection  (Traite, 
II\  no.  336,  pi.  VIII.  9) , which  is  the  sole  representative  of  any  electrnm 
issues  from  the  Chian  mint  later  than  ca.  500  B.  C.  (Pig.  4) . The  obverse 


Fig.  4. 

of  this  Chian  stater  bears  the  usual  type  of  the  Sphinx  and  amjihora  with 
the  addition  of  a vine  wreath  enclosing  the  whole,  from  which  depends 
above  the . amphora  a bunch  of  grapes  which  the  Sphinx  touches  with 
uplifted  right  fore -paw.  The  wreath  is  rather  like  that  on  the  Lamp  - 
sakene  stater,  but  need  not  necessarily  be  considered  as  derived  there- 
from, for,  while  not  a constant  feature  of  the  type  at  Chios  as  at  Lamp- 
sakos  (not  occurring  on  the  archaic  electrum  coins  of  the  former  city) , 
it  is  found  occasionally  at  Chios,  to  wit,  on  archaic  silver  didrachms,  of 
which  there  are  examples  in  the  Jameson  collection  (Rev.  Num.  1912, 
pi.  III.  7)  and  in  the  Paris  cabinet  (Traite  IP,  pi.  XII.  1) , and  again 
on  a di drachm  in  the  London  cabinet  (B.  M.  C.  Ionia,  pi.  XXXII.  4) 
which  was  issued  towards  the  close  of  the  Transitional  period,  ca.  460- 
440  B.  C.  The  electrum  stater  in  question  is  not  struck  on  the  Kyzikene 
standard,  of  which  the  stater  has  a normal  weight  of  16.00  gr.,  as  has 
so  often  been  stated,^  but,  as  Babelon  has  pointed  out,^  on  the  Lam])- 
sakene,  or  ‘ ‘ reduced  Phokaic  ’ ’ standard,  its  weight  being  15.34  gr. 
Head  placed  the  stater  at  the  close  of  the  Fifth  Century,  and  observed 
that  it  was  probably  contemporary  with  the  I staters.®  Babelon  has 
put  the  coin  much  earlier  since  he  assigned  the  I staters,  after  the 
weight  and  type  of  which  the  Chian  coin  seems  to  have  been  patterned, 
and  indeed  all  of  the  electrum  coinage  of  Lamjisakos,  to  the  last  quarter 
of  the  Sixth  Century.  Von  Sallet  regarded  the  coin  as  belonging  to  the 
Fourth  Century. 

In  order  to  settle  definitely  at  least  the  century  to  which  the  coin 
belongs,  let  us  turn  to  the  chronology  of  the  silver  coins  of  Chios  which 

1 Head,  II.  N^.,  pp.  599-600,  and  B.  M.  C.  Ionia,  p.  XXX.  Traitd  Iiq  p.  195. 

® Xum.  Chron,  1876,  p.  287,  note  :5.  * Kgl.  Miinzkabinet,  no.  82. 


1<3 


The  Electkum  Coinage  of  Laiipsakos 


are  extant  in  a long,  continuous  series  extending  from  ca.  GOO-350  B.  C. 
The  style  of  the  Sphinx  on  our  electrum  piece  most  closely  resembles 
that  of  the  earliest  tetradrachms  (B.  M.  C.  Ionia,  pi.  XXXII,  2)  type 
without  magistrate’s  name,  and  the  tetradrachms  with  the  magistrate’s 
names  Theodores,  Theron,  Poseidippos  (Traite  IP,  n.  1964,  pi.  CLIY. 
20)  and  Leochos  (Vienna  collection),  and  contemporary  early  drachms, 
of  which  examples  are  found  in  the  Cambridge  and  Vienna  collections 
(unpublished),  and  also  in  the  New  York,  Metropolitan  Museum  col- 
lection (Ward  Collection,  no.  680,  pi.  XVI) , all  of  which  were  struck  at 
some  time  during  the  period  478-412  B.  C.  The  short  locks  of  the 
Sphinx’s  hair,  the  shape  of  the  amphora,  and  the  plump,  rounded  form 
of  the  body  of  the  Sphinx  which  is  no  longer  of  lean  and  bony  structure 
as  on  the  archaic  and  transitional  coins,  point  this  parallelism  per- 
fectly. It  is  impossible  to  place  the  Berlin  stater  as  late  as  the  Fourth 
Century  for  the  wing  of  the  Sphinx  is  slightly  earlier  in  form  than  that 
of  the  tetradrachm  series,  being  of  the  more  naturalistic,  feathered 
type  found  on  the  coins  of  the  archaic  and  transitional  epochs,  and 
never  again  recurring  once  the  fashion  of  conventionalizing  the  wing 
had  set  in  with  the  commencement  of  the  tetradrachm  issues.  At  what 
date  then  did  the  latter  coins  begin  to  be  struck"?  In  the  B.  M.  C.  Ionia, 
the  coins  given  to  the  period  478-412  B.  C.  are  the  tetradrachm  issue 
without  magistrate’s  name  (pi.  XXXII.  2)  of  the  strong,  beautiful  style 
of  the  finest  coins  struck  at  Chios,  after  which  are  placed  certain  di- 
drachms  (pi.  XXXII.  3,  4)  and  tetrobols  (pi.  XXXII.  5)  which  are, 
however,  of  transitional  style,  and  obviously  antedate  the  tetradrachm 
issue.  These  didrachms  and  tetrobols  are  but  the  continuation  of  the 
archaic  didrachm  series  with  only  a momentary  break,  if  any,  in  con- 
tinuity. Following  these  coins  in  the  catalogue,  come  the  drachms  and 
hemi -drachms  on  which  magistrate’s  marks  begin  to  appear  which  are 
noted  as  })eing  of  later  style  than  the  foregoing,  whose  precise  chrono- 
logical relation  to  the  tetradrachm  issue  of  this  period  and  the  succeed- 
ing one,  we  are  not  concerned  here  to  determine.  In  this  catalogue,  all 
of  the  tetradrachms  and  drachms  bearing  magistrate’s  names  are  placed 
together,  without  distinction  as  to  style,  but  merely  grouped  according 
to  denomination,  in  the  period  412-350  B.  C.  From  this  chronological 
scheme  and  from  Head’s  classification  in  the  H.  p.  600,  one  would 
coiK'lude  that  the  tetradrachm  issue  without  magistrate’s  name  was 
se])arated  l)y  halt  a century  or  more  from  those  with  the  names.  In 
Babelon’s  Traite,  the  didracdims  and  tetrobols  (pi.  XII.  8,  9)  which 
we  have  distinguished  as  Transitional  coins,  are  grouped  with  the 


Tim  Electkum  Coinage  oe  Lamesakos 


17 


archaic  didrachm  series,  and  dated  before  494  B.  C.,  while  the  tetra- 
drachm  issue  without  magistrate’s  name  is  placed  at  the  head  of  a 
group  of  issues  dating,  in  this  treatise,  from  478-394  B.  C.  In  a suc- 
ceeding group  are  placed  the  coins  with  magistrate’s  names,  tetra - 
drachms  and  drachms,  and  they  are  included  within  the  period  394-350 
B.  C.  This  classification  widens  still  further  the  gap  between  the 
tetradrachm  issue  without  and  those  with  the  magistrate’s  names. 

The  first  correction  to  be  made  to  the  above  chronological  schemes 
is  to  place  the  transitional  didrachms  and  tetrobols,  which  exist  in  a con- 
siderable variety  of  types,  mostly  unpublished,  showing  a gradual  prog  - 
ress  in  style,  in  their  proper  place,  that  is,  not  following  the  unsigned 
tetradrachm  issue  but  preceding  it,  and  not  grouped  with  the  archaic 
didrachms,  but  following  them.  They  should  be  given  to  the  period 
478-450  B.  C.  The  next  alteration  to  the  schemes  cited  consists  in 
bringing  together  the  tetradrachm  (and  drachm)  issues  without  names 
and  the  coins  of  the  same  denominations  with  names.  It  is  manifestly 
an  error  to  separate  coins  of  such  closely  similar  style  as  the  tetra- 
drachm issue  without  name  and  those  bearing  the  names,  Theodores, 
Theron,  Poseidippos  and  Leochos.  There  exist  also,  as  stated  above, 
drachms  which  are  undoubtedly  contemporary  with  these  earlier  tetra- 
drachm issues,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  do  not  bear  magis - 
trate’s  names  or  marks.  This  tetradrachm  and  drachm  (and  hemi - 
drachm)  series^  follows  the  didrachm  and  tetrobol  series,  and  continues 
uninterruptedly  until  the  sudden  cessation  of  Chian  issues  which  oc- 
curred about  350  B.  C.  How  closely  the  tetradrachm  and  drachm 
series  succeeded  the  transitional  coins  is  the  debatable  point.  If  the 
identification  of  the  coins  called  ‘ ‘ Chian  Fortieths  ’ ’ by  Thukydides 
(VIII.  101)  and  mentioned  as  in  existence  ca.  411  B.  C.,  and  of  the 
TrevreBpaxM-M  of  Xeuophou  (Hell.  I.  6.  12) , stated  to  be  current  ca.  40G 
B.  C.,  with  these  tetradrachms  be  correct,^  then  we  have  conclusive 
ancient  testimony  confirming  our  subjective  evidence  derived  from  style 
to  prove  that  the  tetradrachm  series  began  in  the  Fifth  Century.  With 
this  literary  evidence  at  hand,  one  is  very  naturally  tempted  to  look  to 
the  history  of  Chios  at  this  period  to  find  an  event  which  might  reason  - 
ably  have  occasioned  the  issue  of  the  important  new  denomination. 
But  to  assume  that  the  occasion  of  the  issue  of  these  tetradrachms  was 

^ The  didrachms  of  barharous  style  (Traits  II^,  pi.  CLIV.  l.'S)  and  flat  obverse  dan  do  not 
appear  to  belong  to  Chios  at  all.  If  they  are  not  a barbarous  imitation,  they  must  be  classed 
chronologically  just  on  the  borderland  between  the  archaic  and  transitional  series.  They  certainly 
do  not  follow  the  tetradrachm  (ibid.  pi.  CLIV.  12). 

" Babelon,  Traits  11%  pp.  1131  ff.  Head,  H.  p.  GOO. 


18 


Thk  Etectijuji  Cuinage  of  Lampsakos 


the  revolt  of  Chios  against  the  Athenian  Hegemony  in  412  B.  C.,  and 
to  sn])])ose  further  that  Chios  would  not  have  commenced  an  important 
new  issue  like  the  tetradrachm  during  the  Athenian  Supremacy,  in  view 
of  the  well-known  coinage -monopoly  which  Athens  exercised  at  the 
expense  of  her  “Allies,”  ^ would  be  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  style. 
Our  chief  authorities,  as  we  have  seen,  have  been  agreed  in  placing  the 
first  tetradrachm  issue,  the  one  without  magistrate’s  name,  at  the  he- 
ginning  of  the  period  478-412  B.  C.,  even  though  it  involved  the  rather 
violent  se]iaration  of  this  one  issue  from  the  whole  series  of  tetra- 
drachms.  These  must  all  belong  together,  and  follow  the  transitional 
coins.  The  style  of  the  earliest  tetradrachms  in  their  grand  simplicity 
and  dignified  severity  would  suggest  the  date  ca.  440-420  B.  C.  This 
date  would  bring  the  earliest  tetradrachms  in  close  sequence  to  the 
electrum  stater  whose  date  it  is  the  object  of  this  long  discussion  to 
settle.  The  electrnm  stater  shows  just  one  trace  of  the  transitional  man- 
ner, namely,  in  the  execution  of  the  wing,  and  this  detail  justifies  us  in 
])lacing  the  stater  in  precisely  that  decade  ca.  450-440  B.  C.  to  which 
on  a priori  grounds  the  style  and  comparison  of  this  stater  and  I staters 
would  incline  us. 

As  the  I staters  are  the  only  coins  to  which  Gardner  directly  al- 
ludes, in  proposing  the  date  434  B.  C.  for  all  of  the  electrum  issues  of 
Lampsakos  {op.  cit.  pp.  20,  25,  32ff.),  it  may  fairly  be  inferred  that  he 
did  not  take  cognizance  of  the  rarer  archaic  staters  at  all.^  Babelon,  on 
the  other  hand,  recognized  the  archaic  character  of  the  early  staters, 
hut  he  classed  the  I staters  with  them.  Let  us  examine  for  a moment 
his  reasons.  Contemporaneously  with  the  early  electrum  coinage,  there 
were  issued  at  Lampsakos,  archaic  silver  coins  bearing,  on  the  obverse, 
a Janiform  female  head,  and,  on  the  reverse,  a head  of  Athena  hel- 
meted.  On  the  reverses  of  some  of  these  silver  coins,  occur  symbols, 
letters  and  monograms  among  which  the  letter  I (Traite  IB,  no.  649) . 
“La  ])resence  de  la  lettre  I sur  cette  drachme  est importante  de  constater, 
car  nous  avons  releve  la  meme  lettre  sur  un  statere  d’eleetrum  contem- 
]K>rain”  (Traite  II\  ]>p.  383,  384). 

Before  proceeding  directly  to  the  rest  of  the  argument  as  developed 
in  the  Traitth  let  us  consider  the  chronological  order  of  the  archaic  sil- 

‘ Cliios,  as  we  know,  as  well  as  Lesbos,  and  Samos  until  4;U)  B.  C.,  occupied  a more  favor- 
able position  than  the  other  ‘‘Allies,”  not  continuously  paying  tribute  to  Athens  (Thuk.  VII.  57.  4). 
and  her  coinage  may,  therefore,  not  have  been  restricted  at  all. 

- On  j).  7 of  Gold  Coinage  of  Asia,  however,  a stater  of  Lampsakos,  not  of  the  J type,  is 
described  (op.  dt.  pi.  1.7  = PI.  I.  1),  and  is  dated  among  the  early  Ionian  electrum  coins  of  ca. 
.55U  15.  ('.! 


The  Electrum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


19 


ver  coins  of  Lampsakos.  There  are  first,  the  silver  coins  bearing  the 
winged  half -horse  (and  incuse  square)  represented  by  the  specimens  in 
the  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  pi.  XVIII.  4-6  and  Traite  IB,  pi.  XYI.  13-16.  The 
coins  with  these  types  which  can  be  definitely  attributed  to  Lampsakos 
are  the  following,  B.  M.  C.  nos.  2-5,  pi.  XVIII.  4-6,  Traite  IB,  nos. 
635,  637-639,  pi.  XVI.  13-16,  and  a coin  in  the  Paris  cabinet,  weighing 
2.30  gr.,  not  catalogued  in  the  Traite,  no.  540  of  the  Inventaire.  These 
coins  appear  to  be,  respectively,  didrachms  B.  M.  C.  2-3,  6.81  gr.,  and 
6.71  gr.  ; tetrobols,  Traite  IB,  635,  637,  2.44  gr.  and  2.35  gr.,  and  no.  540 
of  the  Inventaire,  2.30  gr.  ; diobols,  B.  M.  C.  4-5,  pi.  XVIII.  5,  6,  1.26 
and  1.29  gr.,  and  Traite  IB,  638,  1.25  gr. ; and  a hemi-obol,  Traite  II. ^ 
639,  0.35  gr.,  struck  on  the  Milesi^an  standard.^ 

Then  there  are  the  coins  with  the  new  head  types,  above  noted, 
which  may  be  divided  into  three  groups  according  to  style.  To  the  first 
group  belong  the  drachms,  B.  M.  C.  10-14,  pi.  XVIII.  9 ; tetrobol,  B. 
M.  C.  15,  pi.  XVIII.  10  = Traite,  645  ; trihemiobol,  Traite,  2527,  pi. 
CLXX.  26 ; and  obols,  Traite,  2528,  pi.  CLXX.  27,  and  646,  pi.  XVI. 
20  = B.  M.  C.  21.  On  all  of  these  coins,  the  hair  of  the  Janiform  head 
is  rendered  by  dotted  lines  on  the  united  heads,  and  by  dotted  strands 
hanging  straight  over  the  forehead.  The  second  group  is  composed  of 
drachms,  Traite,  2526,  pi.  CLXX.  25  and  B.  M.  C.  16,  pi.  XVIII.  11,  and 
obols,  B.  M.  C.  20,  pi.  XVIII.  12  and  Cambridge  (Leake)  collection,  with  - 
out  symbol.  The  hair,  in  this  group,  is  rendered  by  dotted  lines  on  the 
joined  heads,  and  by  wavy  bands  over  the  forehead.  The  third  group, 
in  which  an  earlier  and  later  style  may  be  distinguished,  shows  a similar 
treatment  of  the  hair,  but  is  marked  off  from  the  preceding  groups  by 
the  appearance  of  symbols  on  the  reverse,  and  the  olive  wreath  around 
the  helmet,  and  olive  spray  in  the  reverse  field.  On  drachms  there 
occur  the  symbols,  a kerykeion,  B.  M.  C.  17  = Traite,  643,  an  eye.  Cat. 
Benson,  652,  pi.  XXII,  an  amphora,  Traite,  642,  and  the  letter  i,  Traite, 

1 Traits  II^  p.  37<S.  Gardner,  Coinage  of  the  Ionian  Ilevolt,  J.  H.  S.  1911,  p.  1-57.  The 
coin  no.  633  of  the  Traite,  pi.  XVI.  12,  wt,  2.16  gr.  seems  scarcely  to  belong  to  this  system.  The 
style  and  size  of  the  obverse  type  as  compared  with  the  tetrobols  and  diobols  are  against  its  attri- 
bution to  Lampsakos,  which  is  noted  in  the  Trait(i  as  uncertain.  The  coin  no.  510,  pi.  XII.  in  the 
Cat.  Durufl^  (Monn.  gr.  ant.,  Feuardent,  May,  1910),  and  certain  small  coins,  obols  (?),  in  the 
McClean  collection  in  Cambridge,  weighing  0.648  and  0.67  gr.,  are  doubtless  rude  imitations  made 
in  the  Phokaic  colonies  in  Gaul,  probably  at  Massalia,  since  they  are  similar  in  style  and  fabric  to 
the  coins  of  the  Tr^sor  d’Auriol,  Traits  II^,  pi.  LXXXI.  nos.  11-24.  Probably  also  the  silver 
coins  bearing  the  winged  half-horse  r.,  beneath  which  is  an  ear  of  wheat  (Six,  Xum.  Chron.  1894. 
pi.  XIII.  8)  should  not  be  included.  They  may  belong  to  Adramyteion  (Antiken  Munzen  Mysiens, 
p.  10,  note  1 * * * *)^  or  to  lolla,  although  no  other  coins  of  these  cities  are  known,  earlier  than 
the  middle  of  the  Fourth  Century,  B.  C. 


20 


The  Electrum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


G49  = Imh.-BL,  Monn.  grecq.  p.  248,  no.  97,  the  monogram  x , Traite,  648, 
pi.  XVI.  19,  and  Cat.  Jameson,  1433,  pi.  LXXIII  and  the  olive  spray, 
Traite,  641,  pi.  XVI.  18.  On  an  obol  is  found  F , Traite,  pi.  XVI.  21, 
and  around  the  helmet  of  the  Athena  head  is  an  olive  wreath,  which 
is  found  also  on  the  drachms  with  I and  x . 

Now  the  silver  coins  with  the  horse  type,  struck  on  the  Milesian 
standard,^  must  have  been  issued  concurrently  with  the  electrum  staters 
of  Milesian  weight  (PI.  II.  l-3f)  which  as  we  shall  later  develop,  were 
struck  ca.  500  B.  C.  Their  style  which  indicates  that  they  are  all  of 
about  one  period,  is  very  close  to  that  of  the  staters  of  Per.  I,  and  of 
those  of  Milesian  weight,  but  their  weight  standard  makes  it  practically 
certain  that  they  were  issued  as  divisional  pieces  of  the  latter. 

The  silver  coinage  with  the  head  types  struck  on  the  Persic  standard 
could  not  have  been  issued  concurrently  with  the  silver  coinage  with  the 
horse  type  struck  on  the  Milesian  standard.  The  former  must  therefore 
either  have  preceded  or  followed  the  latter.  Their  style  is  not  sufficiently 
archaic  to  permit  our  placing  them  en  bloc  before  ca.  500  B.  C.,  and  they 
must  consequently  all  belong  to  the  early  Fifth  Century.  For,  even 
though  the  Milesian  electrum  staters,  and  the  subsidiary  silver  coins  with 
horse  type  of  this  standard,  were  extraneous  issues  apart  from  the  regu- 
lar series,  as  will  later  be  demonstrated,  still  they  were  all  undoubtedly 
struck  at  the  mint  of  Lampsakos,  and  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  the 
two  silver  coinages  struck  on  different  standards  circulating  side  by  side. 
The  silver  coins  with  the  head  types  must  consequently  have  been  be- 
gun after  ca.  500  B.  C.,  and  with  this  conclusion,  their  style  is  in  per- 
fect accord.  The  coins  which  we  have  placed  in  the  first  group  are  of 
exactly  that  degree  of  archaism  which  we  know  from  other  coin  series, 
compare  that  of  Syracuse,  for  example,  to  have  prevailed  during  the 
decade  ca.  500-490  B.  C.,  and  the  coins  of  the  second  and  third  groups 
extend  down  probably  not  much  later  than  ca.  470  B.  C.,  i.  e.  to  the 
threshold  of  what  we  term  the  Transitional  epoch.  In  this  connection, 
note  the  date  independently  assigned  by  J ameson  to  the  drachm  with  x , 
“vers  470”  (Cat.  Jameson,  1433) , which  we  have  placed  in  the  third 
grou])  of  coins  with  the  head  types. 

Now,  to  return  to  the  main  argument,  the  letter  i on  the  electrum 
staters  of  our  Per.  II  is  held  by  Babelon  to  be  the  initial  of  the  same 
magistrate  who  signed  the  silver  drachm  with  the  letter  I,  and  since  a 

1 I5abelon  (Traitd  IF,  p.  378)  says  “ I’dtalon  mildsiaque  rMuit,"  but  the  weights  of  the  vari- 
ous (leiiominatioiis  when  taken  together,  not  that  of  the  didrachms  alone,  which  are  a trifle  below 
norm,  correspond  to  the  theoretical  system  given  on  p.  267  of  the  Traite. 


The  Electrum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


21 


second  coincidence  of  an  identical  moneyer’s  mark,  the  amphora,  is 
found  to  occur  on  the  electrum  staters  of  Per.  I and  likewise  in  the 
silver  drachm  series,  it  is  argued  that  all  of  these  issues,  silver  and  elec- 
trum, should  he  dated  at  the  same  period  . , . . “ I’amphore  et  la  lettre 
I qui  doivent  etre  I’embleme  et  I’initiale  de  noms  de  magistrats  mone- 
taires,  se  retrouvent  sur  des  monnaies  d’ argent  dont  1’ attribution  a 
Lampsaque  n’est  pas  douteuse  et  qui  sont  contemporaines  de  nos 
stateres  d’ electrum,  Ce  sont  les  memes  magistrats  qui  ont  signe  ces 
stateres  d’ electrum  et  ces  pieces  d’ argent.  ...”  (Traite  IP,  p.  185) . 

The  amphora,  however,  as  our  catalogue  of  types  shows,  only  oc- 
curs with  perfect  certainty  on  one  stater,  namely,  on  the  very  earliest 
issue  from  the  Lampsakene  mint,  no.  1,  PI.  I.  1,  but  the  divergence  in 
style  between  this  really  primitive  looking  stater  and  the  drachm  with 
the  amphora  symbol  is  so  pronounced  that  there  could  be  no  question  of 
these  coins  being  simultaneous  issues,  and  from  the  foregoing  it  has  been 
made  perfectly  evident  that  drachms  of  this  type  were  struck  ca.  480- 
470  B,  C.  Furthermore  I strongly  doubt  whether  the  amphora  on  the 
electrum  stater  in  question  ought  to  be  regarded  as  a private  mark.  It 
probably  belongs  to  that  class  of  symbols  which  constitute  an  amplifica  - 
tion  of  the  chief  type,  like  the  amphora,  and  later,  the  amphora  and 
bunch  of  grapes,  on  the  coins  of  Chios  which,  added  one  after  another 
to  the  main  type  of  the  Sphinx,  became  an  integral  part  of  the  type 
expressing  the  fertility  and  renown  of  the  vineyards  of  this  island . 
The  amphora  at  Lampsakos,  employed  to  express  an  identical  idea,  was 
speedily  replaced  by  the  vine  wreath,  a form  of  symbolism  more  perfectly 
adapted  to  the  type. 

But  there  is  more  to  the  argument  in  favor  of  a Sixth -Century  date 
for  the  I staters.  Thus  far  it  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  electrum 
stater  with  the  amphora  symbol  is  separated  by  four  or  five  decades 
from  the  drachm  with  the  same  symbol,  and  also  that  the  symbols  have 
a different  significance  in  the  two  cases.  There  is  not  however  the 
same  wide  difference  in  date  discernible  in  the  style  of  the  electrum 
staters  bearing  the  letter  I and  the  drachms  with  the  same  initial. 
The  former  coins  have  been  dated  on  grounds  of  style,  on  the  evidence 
of  the  find  in  which  they  occurred,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  resemblance 
between  these  coins  and  the  Chian  Fifth -Century  electrum  issue,  at  about 
450  B.  C.  The  silver  drachm  may  be  as  late  as  470  B.  C.  And  there 
is  nothing  in  the  evidence  available  to  conflict  with  the  assumption  of  a 
slightly  earlier  date  for  the  electrum  coinage,  or  a somewhat  later  date 
for  the  silver  drachm,  so  as  to  bring  both  issues  under  the  same  magistrate. 


22 


The  Eleotrum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


There  remains  now  the  third  point  in  the  argument  to  be  consid- 
ered. In  the  archaic  series  of  Athens  there  are  some  remarkable  small 
coins  bearing  on  the  obverse  a Janiform  female  head  similar  to  the 
Lampsakene  type,  and  on  the  reverse  the  head  of  Athena  helmeted, 
with  the  ethnic,  in  the  usual  style  of  the  period.  Babelon  sees  in  the 
strange  appearance  of  this  obverse  type,  which  is  an  intrusion,  as  it 
were,  upon  the  fixed  types  of  Athena  and  the  owl,  and  in  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Athenian  symbol,  the  olive,  on  the  silver  coins  of  Lamp- 
sakos, a reflex  of  the  intimate  relations  created  between  Athens  and 
Lampsakos  through  the  alliance  formed  by  Hippias,  tyrant  of  Athens 
and  Hippoklos,  tyrant  of  Lampsakos,  ca.  513  B.  C.^  The  circumstances 
are  narrated  by  Thukydides  (VI.  59)  who  traced  his  ancestry  back  to  the 
Peisistratids.  After  the  death  of  Hipparchos,  Hippias  seeing  his  power 
at  home  weakening,  sought  a foreign  alliance  with  a tyrant  supported 
by  Persia,  and  gave  his  daughter  Archedike  in  marriage  to  Aiantides, 
son  of  Hippoklos  of  Lampsakos  who  enjoyed  great  favor  under  Dareios. 
“ C’est  a I’occasion  de  ce  mariage  et  de  I’alliance  qu’il  consacrait,  que 
furent  frappees  les  pieces  ci-dessus  decrites,^  ainsi  que  celles  d’Athenes 
qui  portent,  les  unes  et  les  autres,  d’un  cote  I’effigie  d’Athena,  et  de 
r autre,  la  tete  janiforme  de  Lampsaque.”  (Traite  IP,  p.  386) . And 
again  “ Ces  pieces  d’argenP  ....  sont  rigoreusement  datees  ; elles  ont 
ete  frappees  a I’occasion  du  mariage  d’Archedice,  la  fille  d’Hippias,  avec 
Aiantides,  fils  d’  Hippolochos  {sic) ; elles  consacrent  1’ alliance  que  con- 
clurent  dans  cette  circonstance,  Hippias  et  Hippolochos  {sic) , vers  513. 
Et  ainsi,  nous  pouvons  affirmer  que  les  monnaies  d’electrum  ci-dessus 
decrites,  ont  ete  frappees  a Lampsaque  vers  513.”  (Traite  II\  p.  186) . 

This  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Janiform  head  type  at  Athens  is 
extremely  ingenious  and  very  plausible  at  first  view.  But  the  style  of 
the  double  head  on  the  Athenian  coins  is  certainly  rather  more  archaic 
than  that  of  even  the  earliest  of  the  Lampsakene  silver  coins  with  the 
Janiform  head.  If  the  Athenian  coins  were  struck  by  Hippias  to  com- 
memorate the  marriage  of  his  daughter  with  the  son  of  the  Lampsakene 
tyrant,  it  would  have  been  between  the  years  ca.  513-511  B.  C.,  i.  e. 
after  the  death  of  Hipparchos  in  514,  when  Hippias  was  impelled  to  seek 
a ])rotecting  alliance  abroad,  and  before  the  time  of  his  expulsion  from 
Athens.  And  this  is  exactly  the  date  which  the  style  of  these  Athenian 
])iec.es  would  indicate.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Lampsakene  series, 

' Trait(‘  IT,  pp.  Tolif,  pp.  1S5,  18G,  and  pp.  .‘585,  .‘580.  Six,  Xuni.  Chron.  1895,  pp.  172, 173. 

'•“  XaTiudy,  tlie  silver  coins  of  Lampsakos  with  the  head  types,  Traitd  IP,  041-050. 

“ That  is,  the  coins  of  Lampsakos,  Traitd,  041-050. 


The  Electrum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


23 


one  does  not  find  the  reciprocal  adoption  of  an  Athenian  type,  for  the 

head  of  Athena  to  the  left,  wearing  a Corinthian  helmet  can  hardly  be 
claimed  as  a distinctly  Athenian  type.  And  what  is  particularly 
claimed  as  exhibiting  the  “ reflex  ” of  the  alliance,  the  essentially 
Athenian  symbol,  the  olive  (around  the  helmet  of  Athena,  as  a wreath, 
and,  in  the  field,  as  a spray)  does  not  appear  at  once  on  the  earliest 
coins,  but  only  in  the  latter  part  of  the  series,  namely  on  coins,  which, 
if  our  dating  be  correct,  belong  rather  well  along  towards  490-480  B.  C., 
and  later.  Persuasive  therefore  as  the  hypothesis  is,  as  regards  the 
origin  of  the  double -headed  type  in  the  Athenian  series,^  I do  not  feel 
disposed  to  admit  it  in  its  entirety,  for  the  date  ca.  513  B.  C.  is  far  too 
early  for  the  Lampsakene  coins  on  which  the  olive  appears.  The 
following  modification  of  the  theory  might  be  allowed.  It  might  be 
assumed,  though  it  involves  considerable  difficulty  with  regard  to  the 
silver  coinage  with  the  horse  type  at  Lampsakos,  that  the  series  with 
the  head  types  of  this  city  began  ca.  513  B.  C.  when  the  supposed 
Hippias  coins  of  Athens  were  issued.  For  we  may  suppose  either  that 
the  art  of  Athens  lagged  behind  that  of  Lampsakos,  whence  the  incon - 
gruity  of  style  between  the  Athenian  pieces  and  our  earliest  known 
Lampsakene  coins  with  head  types,  or  that  it  is  a mere  chance  that  no 
specimens  of  the  latter  coins,  more  archaic  in  style,  have  come  down  to 
us.  The  appearance  then  of  the  Athenian  symbol,  the  olive,  on  the 
later  issues  of  the  head  types  at  Lampsakos  may  be  said  to  be  due  to 
the  continuance  of  the  tradition  of  the  alliance,  that  is,  to  the  influence 

1 If  we  abandon  the  hypothesis  entirely,  how  do  we  account  for  the  Janiform  type  at  Athens  ? 
It  could  not  be  borrowed  from  Lampsakos,  for  this  type  was  not  commenced  at  the  date  required 
by  the  theory,  ca.  513  B.  C.  The  origin  of  the  Janiform  types,  both  beads  female,  or  male  or 
female,  is  very  obscure.  At  Tenedos  and  at  Gaza,  where  it  is  best  known  outside  of  Lampsakos, 
it  would  appear  to  have  had  an  independent  origin,  for  there  is  no  proof  of  borrowing.  One’s 
fancy  is  kindled  by  the  apparent  connection  of  the  double  head  with  the  double  axe  at  Tenedos. 
Greek  legend  could  not  account  for  these  types  (Traite  II^,  366-374)  and  as  their  origin  was  evi- 
dently lost  to  the  Greeks  themselves,  it  is  eminently  reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  go  back  to 
the  prehistoric  age.  Such  survivals,  like  the  Carian  cult  of  Zeus  Labrandeus,  or  Zeus  of  the 
labrys,  the  bipennis  or  double  axe,  would  be  appropriate  in  countries  or  places,  which  had  come 
under  the  sphere  of  influence  of  Aegean  civilization.  Every  one  of  the  cities,  where  the  double 
head  (and  sometimes  the  double  axe)  occurs,  fulfills  this  postulate.  Lampsakos  and  Tenedos 
were  ancient  settlements,  probably  originally  Phoenician  trading-posts,  as  the  derivation  of  the 
name  of  the  former  from  “ Lapsak  ’’  “ at  the  ford  ” in  Phoenician,  like  Thapsakos  from  Thiphsach 
(Busolt,  Gr.  Gesch.  I.  p.  271)  and  the  traditions  regarding  Tenedos  (one  of  its  early  names  was 
Phoenike)  prove,  while  Gaza  is  said  to  have  been  settled  by  Cretan  “ Philistines  ” (Mosso,  Dawn 
of  Mediterranean  Civilization,  p.  36).  It  would  be  a complex  matter  to  evolve  any  further  an 
hypothesis  regarding  a cult  of  a dual  or  dimorphous  deity,  and  I leave  it  to  competent  students  of 
prehistoric  and  Greeks  cults  to  decide  whether  the  aniconic  image  of  the  sacred  double  axe  may 
have  developed  into  a Janiform  divinity  during  the  anthropomorphic  stage  of  Greek  religion. 


•24 


The  Er>ECTRUAr  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


of  Hippias’s  son-in-law,  Aiantides,  or  his  descendants.  The  original 
^ ‘ reflex  ’ ’ of  the  alliance  as  seen  in  the  Lampsakene  series  would  then 
have  been,  merely,  the  adoption  of  the  type,  a helmeted  Athena  head. 
The  whole  theory  is  of  course  weakened  to  the  point  of  invalidation  by 
the  establishment  of  the  date  ca.  490-480  B.  C.  for  the  appearance  of 
the  olive  in  the  Lampsakene  series. 

In  other  passages  in  the  Traite,  Bahelon  himself  seems  to  date  the 
coins  showing  the  olive  all  in  the  Fifth  Century.  “ On  sait,  d’ailleurs, 
qn’  Hippias  chasse  d’Athenes  en  511,  et  retire  a Sigeion,  allait  frequem- 
ment  a Lampsaque  chez  son  gendre  et  sa  fllle.  Ses  petits-fils  succederent 
a leur  pere  Aiantides  et  la  branche  d’olivier  qui  est  un  symbole  essen- 
tiellement  athenien,  se  voit  encore  snr  les  monnaies  de  Lampsaque  du 
commencement  du  V®  siecle,  soit  autour  du  casque  d’Athena,  soit  dans 
le  champ  de  la  piece  ” (Traite  11\  p.  386,  and  also  11\  p.  755) . At  all 
events,  the  silver  drachm  bearing  the  letter  I which  must  be  contempo- 
raneous with  the  coins  bearing  the  olive,  cannot  be  pushed  back  into  the 
Sixth  Century,  and  therefore  the  electrum  staters,  with  this  same  letter, 
need  not  be,  and  this  it  has  been  the  point  of  the  whole  argument  to 
prove. 

Finally,  in  conclusion,  we  may  observe  that,  if  the  I staters  were 
placed  as  early  as  ca.  513  B.  C.,  in  view  of  the  undeniable  break  in  the 
continuity  of  style  between  these  issues  and  those  of  Per.  I,  we  should 
be  obliged  to  assume  an  extraordinarily  early  date  for  the  latter  coins, 
which  would  not  be  at  all  consonant  with  the  occurrence  of  money ers’ 
letters  of  such  well-formed  style  as  are  found  on  the  coins  (PI.  I.  2-5) . 
To  resume  this  protracted  discussion,  the  I staters  do  not  represent 
the  ‘ ‘ premier  archaisme  ’ ’ of  the  Lampsakene  issues,  the  evidence  of 
the  hoard  in  which  they  were  found,  and  the  affinity  of  style  between 
them  and  the  Chian  Fifth -Century  electrum  stater  tending  conclusively 
to  establish  their  date  as  ca.  450  B.  C. 

Besides  the  staters  of  Periods  I and  II  there  is  another  class  of 
electrum  staters  bearing  the  same  obverse  type,  to  which  we  have  al- 
ready referred  in  this  paper,  as  staters  of  Milesian  weight,  which  had 
been  doubtfully  attributed  to  Lampsakos.  This  uncertain  class  of  coins 
has  usually  been  dated  ca.  500  B.  C.,  or  earlier,  and  by  Head  and  Wroth 
they  were  jilaced  before  the  coins  of  our  Per.  I.  Six  supposed  these 
Lamx)sakene  staters  to  belong  towards  the  end  of  the  Fifth  Century, 
and  Bahelon  is  rather  inclined  to  carry  them  well  down  into  the  Fifth 
('(Mitury.  The  obverse  ty])C  is  not  enclosed  within  a vine  wreath  as  on 
tlie  regular  s(‘ries,  and  the  incuse  square  departs  from  the  regular  form 


The  Eeectrum  Coinage  of  La:mpsakos 


‘25 


characteristic  of  the  Lamp^akeiie  staters,  namely,  with  two  squares 
raised  and  two  sunk.  The  coins  may  for  convenience  be  designated 
the  palmette  type,  from  the  stylized  ornament  usually  found  above  the 
horse,  The  reverse  is  an  incuse  square  divided  by  two  raised  lines, 
liner  than  on  the  coins  of  Per.  I,  into  four  equally,  and  rather  deeply, 
sunk  compartments.  The  coins  are  of  globular  fabric,  and  of  very  pale, 
almost  silvery  color.  The  following  is  a detailed  description  of  the 
varieties  of  the  type,  and  a list  of  the  known  specimens. 


C Forepart  of  a winged  liorse  1.,  round 
wings,  feathered,  1.  raised,  r.  lowered  ; 1. 
wing  in  three  sections,  the  one  joining  the 
body  granulated,  the  middle  one  shaped 
like  that  on  coins  nos.  9-13  of  Per.  I.,  the 
third  section  curving  back  convexly  to- 
wards the  head  of  the  hoi’se ; r.  wing  in 
two  sections ; trvo  dotted  lines  across  the 
neck  parallel  to  1.  wing;  line  at  termina- 
tion of  body  (?)  ; horse  is  bi’idled. 

EL.  19mra.  14.15  gr.  Vienna. 

Sestini,  Stat.  Ant.  p.  02,  no.  1. 

2.  Similar  description  and  style ; above 
the  horse  ^ 

EL.  20mm.  13.86  gr.  Munich. 

Sestini,  Stat.  Ant.  p.  02,  no.  2,  ]il.  VI.  1.  iV 
Gewichtswesen,  p.  ;5SS.  Head,  Ninn.  Chroii.  187 

3.  Similar  description,  but  somewhat 
broader  style ; at  termination  of  horse’s 
body,  a row  of  four  dots  between  two 
raised  lines  ; above  ^ 

EL.  ca.  19mm. 


Incuse  square  divided  by  two  raised  lines 
into  four  square  compartments,  equally, 
and  rather  deeply,  sunk.^ 


Plate  II.  1. 

Similar,  but  larger  incuse  and  Iieavier 
cross-lines. 

Plate  II.  2. 

ionnet,  Snp.  V.  no.  041.  Brandis,  Miinz-Mass-u 
5,  pi.  VII.  8. 

Similar,  but  smaller  incuse  and  finer 
cross-lines. 

Plate  II.  3a-3f. 


a.  14.01  gr.  Berlin. 

b.  13.92  gr.  Berlin. 

Cat.  de  Molthein,  no.  1883,  ])1.  XIV  (Paris,  1895). 

c.  14.07  gr.  Boston  (Greenwell- Warren). 

Six,  Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  216,  no.  7.  Regling,  Samm.  W arren,  no.  1734,  pi.  XXXVII. 

d.  13.98  gr.  London  (Whittall). 

Cat.  Whittall,  no.  779  (S.  W.  & II.,  London,  1884).  Head,  Niim.  Chron.  1887,  p.  287, 
])1.  X.  8.  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  p.  78,  no.  1,  jr.  XVIII.  3.  B.  M.  V Ionia,  p.  7,  no.  32,  pi.  I.  22. 

e.  13.98  gr.  Cambridge  (McClean). 

Cat.  Benson,  no.  651,  pi.  XXII.  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  1909). 

^ Through  breakage  of  the  die,  the  squares  which  should  he  incuse  are  almost  ■■  lillcd  up  ” 
with  the  metal,  hut  the  cross-lines  are  easily  distinguishable. 


26 


The  Electrum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


f.  14.02  gr.  Paris  (Wadd.). 

Babelon,  Inv.  Wadd.,  no.  854,  and  Traite  IP,  no.  329,  pi.  VIII.  5. 

g.  13.85  gr.  (formerly  Imhoof-Bliimer).  Doubletten  des  kgl.  Mtinzkab- 

inets  zu  Berlin,  lio.  115,  pi.  I (Hess,  Frankfurt  a/M.,  1907). 

a-e  and  g.  Same  obverse  and  reverse  dies.  f.  From  similar,  but  not  identical  dies. 

These  palmette  staters  used  to  be  assigned  unquestionably  to  Lamp  - 
sakos.^  Six,  at  one  time,  regarded  them  as  the  earliest  issue,  and  thought 
that  the  coins  of  our  Per.  I (the  only  specimens  then  known  being  the 
coins,  nos.  8 and  12,  and  the  coin  cited,  p.  8,  note  1)  formed  the 
transition  between  the  ^ and  the  I types. ^ Wroth  and  Head  also 
regarded  the  palmette  type  as  the  earliest  issue.®  Since  these  coins 
weigh  less  than  the  staters  of  Per.  I,  it  would,  on  this  hypothesis, 
he  necessary  to  assume  a change  in  the  weight  standard  at  the  time 

of  the  issue  of  the  latter  coins,  that  is  to  say,  the  stater  of  ca.  14.02 

grams  (217  grains)  would  have  been  increased  to  a stater  of  ca.  15.36 

grams  (237  grains) . But  if  we  examine  minutely  the  style  of  the  coins 

of  PI.  II.  1,  2 and  3a -Sf,  we  shall  see  that  while  one  might  conceivably 
place  nos.  1 and  2 of  this  plate  before  the  coins  nos.  7-11  of  PI.  I,  it 
will  hardly  be  claimed  by  anyone  that  these  two  coins  could  antedate 
such  archaic,  rudely  executed  coins  as  those  of  PI.  I.  1=6.  And,  again, 
since  the  coins  of  this  “uncertain  ” group  must  stand  together,  no  one, 
I presume,  would  care  to  maintain  that  the  coins  nos.  3a=3f  of  PL  II 
are  earlier  than  the  coins  nos.  1-6  of  PL  I. 

The  coins  in  Per.  I which  this  doubtful  group  most  resemble  are 
those  at  the  very  end  of  the  series,  namely,  nos.  10  and  11  of  PL  I,  and 
more  particularly,  no.  11.  Chronologically  then  the  palmette  staters 
would  fit  on  very  well  to  the  end  of  Per.  I.  But  such  a proceeding  as 
a change  of  weight,  fabric,  composition  of  the  metal,  type,  and  style  of 
incuse  for  the  short  period  of  these  issues,  and  a subsequent  reversion 
to  the  established  types,  weights,  etc.,  of  the  I issue  would  be  a very 
strange  thing.  The  palmette  staters  must  therefore  be  an  extraneous 
issue  due  to  some  unusual  circumstances,  and  they  should  be  classed 
aj)art  from  the  regular  issues  of  Periods  I and  II.  Our  modern  numis- 
matic authorities  have  therefore  been  very  generally  agreed  in  detach- 
ing these  coins  from  the  regular  series,  but  the  real  significance  of  the 
coins  has  only  lately  become  manifest.  It  has  for  some  time  been 
T'ecognized  that  these  Lampsakene  staters  belonged  to  a whole  group  of 

’ Sestini,  Stat.  Ant.  p.  62.  Brandis,  op.  cit.  p.  388. 

Six,  Nuin.  Chron.  1877,  p.  171 . 

**  Head,  Nimi.  (diron.  1887,  p.  282.  Wroth,  E.  M.  C.  Mysia,  pp.  78,  79. 


The  Electrum  CoinaCtE  of  Lampsakos 


27 


staters  (PI.  II.  1-11)  of  homogeneous  fabric,  composition  of  metal  and 
style,  with  similar  reverse,  but  varying  obverse  types  which  were  struck 
on  the  Milesian  standard.  Head  had  suggested  that  these  staters  might 
all  have  been  struck  at  one  mint,  and  that  the  obverses  might  really  be 
changing  magistrate’s  symbols  usurping  the  place  of  types  as  on  the 
Kyzikene  electrum  and  Lampsakene  gold  coinages.^  Six  went  further, 
and  proposed  to  assign  them  all  to  Chios  because  of  the  form  of  the  in- 
cuse which  is  of  the  local  type  developed  at  Chios,  and  because  they 
follow  the  Milesian  standard  of  weight  which  was  also  employed  at 
Chios  for  electrum.^  No  special  historical  event  was  turned  to  account 
to  explain  the  issues,  but  the  theory  of  a monetary  alliance  had  been 
put  forward  by  Babelon.®  From  the  obverse  types,  the  mints  repre - 
sented  by  this  alliance  coinage  are  the  following : Lampsakos  (forepart 
of  a winged  horse) , PI.  II.  l-3f,  Abydos  (eagle) , PI.  II.  4,  4a,  Dardanos 
(cock) , PI.  II.  5,  Chios  (Sphinx),  PI.  II.  6,  Kumai  (f)  (free  horse) , 
PI.  II.  7,  Klazomenai  (forepart  of  a winged  boar) , PI.  II.  8,  Samos 
(forepart  of  a bull) , PI.  II.  9,  Methymna  (?)  (sow)  PI.  II.  10,  and 
Priene  (?)  (Athena  head) , PI.  II.  11.  Quite  recently  considerable  light 
has  been  thrown  upon  this  perplexing  group  of  coins  by  the  suggestion 
made  first  by  Gardner  (Gold  Coinage  of  Asia,  1908,  and  again  in  Coin- 
age of  the  Ionian  Revolt,  Journ.  Hell.  Stud.,  1911,  pp.  151ff  and  1918, 
p.  105) , and  later,  but  quite  independently  by  Jameson  (Rev.  Num., 
1911,  pp.  60ff,  and  also  1913,  p.  403) , that  in  this  set  of  coins  was  to  be 
recognized  the  coinage  issued  by  the  cities  of  Ionia  (and  their  Helles- 
pontine  allies)  which  took  part  in  the  Ionian  Revolt  against  Persia,  ca. 
500-494  B.  C.  The  narrative  of  Herodotos  dealing  with  the  history  of 
this  period  has  been  amply  commented  upon  in  the  three  papers  cited, 
and  it  will  be  sufficient  here  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  cities  repre  - 
sented  by  the  coins  which  survive  are  all  mentioned  by  Herodotos  as 
playing  an  active  part  in  the  uprising. 

The  theory  that  these  staters  are  Revolt  issues  is  an  attractive 
hypothesis  by  which  to  explain  an  otherwise  puzzling  group  of  coins. 
It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  our  series,  because,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  Lampsakene  staters  of  this  class  resemble  very  closely  the  latest 
issues  of  Per.  I,  and  if  the  palmette  staters  can  thus  be  definitely  dated, 
we  should  obtain  an  exact  terminus  post  quern  for  the  last  issues  of  the 
regular  series  of  archaic  staters  of  Lampsakos  (PI.  I.  1-11) . 

^ B.  M.  C.  Ionia,  p.  7,  8,  pp.  XXIY,  XXY,  and  Xuin.  Chron.  1S87,  p.  281. 

Xum.  Chron.  1890,  p.  281. 

® Traitd  II^,  p.  198. 


28 


The  Electrum  Coinage  op  Lampsakos 


Let  us  consider  the  style  of  these  staters  which  have  been  so  vari- 
ously dated.  The  style  of  the  “Revolt”  stater  of  Klazomenai  fits 
admirably  the  proposed  date,  ca.  500  B.  C.,  as  one  may  judge  from  a 
comparison  of  this  coin  with  silver  didrachms  of  Klazomenai  of  the 
period  ca.  545-494  B.  C.  (Babelon,  Traite  IT,  pi.  XII.  13,  14).  The 
style  of  the  electrum  stater  is  more  advanced  and  more  refined  than  on 
certain  of  these  didrachms  which  were  probably  struck  before  500  B.  C., 
and  appears  to  be  at  just  the  same  stage  of  development  as  the  didrachm 
figured  in  B.  M.  C.  Ionia,  pi.  VI.  1.  Compare  also  the  didrachms  of 
the  Vourla  (Klazomenai)  find  which  was  composed  of  didrachms  of 
this  city,  of  several  examples  of  the  “Revolt”  coinage,  together  with 
a number  of  electrum  hektai  of  Samos  which  are  doubtless  fractions 
of  the  Samian  “Revolt”  stater  (Rev.  Num.  1911,  pis.  I and  II). 
One  may  also  compare  the  forepart  of  a winged  boar  on  an  electrum 
stater  of  Kyzikos  dating  ca.  550-475  (von  Fritze,  Kyzikos,  Nomisma 
VII,  pi.  II.  12) . The  style  of  the  free  horse  on  the  stater  of  Kumai  (?) 
is  not  too  late  tor  this  period  as  one  might  at  first  glance  be  inclined 
to  think,  for,  if  we  regard  the  way  in  which  the  fore -legs  of  the 
animal  are  raised,  we  shall  see  that  the  position  is  managed  quite  in 
the  archaic  manner  of  the  early  silver  coins  of  Klazomenai  (Babelon, 
Traite  IB,  pi.  XII.  13,  14),  and  of  those  of  Erythrai  (ib.  pi.  XII,  10- 
12)  and  of  the  Lampsakene  stater  (PI.  I.  1)  which  surely  antedates 
the  Fifth  Century.  For  a free  horse  of  the  Fifth -Century  style, 
compare  the  electrum  stater  of  Kyzikos  {op.  eit.^  pi.  V.  24),  and  for 
one  of  the  Fourth  Century,  compare  another  stater  {op.  eit.  pi.  VI. 
30),  and  note  particularly  the  pose  of  rear-  and  fore -legs  on  all  these 
coins.  The  unique  stater  with  the  head  of  Athena  helmeted,  Priene 
( ?) , with  its  curious  “archaizing”  treatment  of  the  hair  (Jameson, 
Rev.  Num.  1911,  p.  68),  and  delicate,  refined  style  may  perhaps  seem 
too  advanced  for  the  date,  ca.  500  B.  C.,  but  the  wing  of  the  hel- 
met is  of  the  early  form  found  on  the  Sphinx  of  the  silver  coins  of 
Chios  prior  to  490  B.  C.  and  common  to  other  winged  animal  figures  of 
Lamx)sakos,  Klazomenai,  etc.,  of  the  archaic  period.  The  finesse  in 
the  execution  of  this  head  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  careful  style  of 
the  whole  group  of  staters.  One  might  object  that  the  forepart  of  a 
])ull  with  reverted  head  on  the  Samian  stater  is  of  too  “ affected  ” style 
for  the  period  in  question,  but  it  is  easy  to  reply  that  this  motive  was  a 
('ommon  one  in  archaic  Ionian  electrum,  and  elsewhere  at  an  early  date. 

Tlie  style  of  the  Chian  member  of  the  group  ought  to  prove  deci- 
sive* for  tin*  problem  of  tin*  date.  Sim-e  Chios  did  not  strike  her  “ Re- 


TiIK  ElECTUUM  C^OINAOE  OE  LAJri’SAKOS 


29 


volt  ” coins  as  a special  issue,  but,  being  the  leading  spirit  in  the  Ionian 
Koinon,  furnished  from  her  already  existing  electriim  coinage  the  model 
for  the  fabric,  weight  and  composition  of  the  metal  of  these  alliance 
issues,  the  contemporary  Chian  coin  must  be  that  stater  whose  reverse 
most  nearly  accords  with  the  style  of  the  other  Revolt  coins,  and  whose 
obverse  is  in  keeping  with  the  general  style  of  the  group.  Six  selected, 
as  the  Chian  member  of  the  group,  the  stater  in  the  British  Museum 
(B.  M.  C.  Ionia,  pi.  I.  19) . Gardner  in  his  first  paper  associated  this 
same  stater  with  the  Revolt  issues  {op.  cit.  pi.  I.  8) , but  in  his  second, 
more  comprehensive  paper,  he  rejected  this  coin  as  of  too  early  style, 
and  published  as  the  contemporary  piece,  a stater  in  the  St.  Petersburg 
collection  {op.  cit.  pi.  VII.  1)  which,  he  noted,  was  of  “ somewhat  un- 
usual archaic  style  ’ ’ {op.  cit.  p.  154,  note  11) . This  coin,  I learn  on 
good  authority,  is  considered  to  be  of  doubtful  authenticity,  and  judg- 
ing from  a cast  of  the  coin,  I should  say  it  was  decidedly  “ suspect.” 
In  the  Vourla  hoard  there  was  found  a coin  of  Chios  (Rev.  Num.  1911, 
pi.  I.  1)  which,  being  discovered  in  company  with  other  “ Revolt  ” 
staters,  might  perhaps  be  considered  as  the  missing  member.  Jameson 
however  has  pointed  out  that  the  style  of  this  stater  is  appreciably  ear- 
lier (note  especially  the  small,  deep  incuse  of  the  reverse)  than  that  of 
the  other  Revolt  staters,  and  he  has  identified  as  the  contemporary  piece 
wanted,  a stater  in  his  own  collection  (Cat.  Jameson,  1520a,  pi.  XCY= 
PI.  II.  6)  which  is  a type  known  by  four  examples,  the  one  cited,  and 
examples  in  Munich  (Sestini,  Stat.  Ant.  pi.  IX.  7) , Boston  (Samm. 
Warren  pi. XXXVII.  1736)  and  Copenhagen.  The  reverse  is  identical 
with  those  of  the  group  coinage,  and  the  style  of  the  Sphinx  exactly 
suited  to  the  date  ca.  500  B.  C.,  note  the  attention  paid  to  the  bony 
structure  of  the  body,  the  elaborate  refinement  of  detail,  seen  in  the 
adornment  with  earring,  stephane  and  vine  tendril,  and  the  “tassel” 
of  the  tail.  Sphinxes  of  the  same  style  are  found  on  the  silver  di- 
drachms  of  Chios  which  belong  to  the  period  500-490  B.  C.  (B.  M.  C. 
Ionia,  pi.  XXXII  1,  Cat.  Jameson,  no.  1521,  pi.  LXXVI  and  Trouvaille 
de  Tarente,  Rev.  Num.  1912,  pi.  III.  7) . 

There  are  extant  some  thirty  specimens  in  all  of  the  nine  types  of 
the  Revolt  coins^  (the  coin  of  Priene  is  the  only  unique  type) , and  in 

1 There  is  another  electrum  stater  (B.  M.  C.  Ionia,  pi.  II.  3,  Trait(?  Iiq  pi.  V.  17)  whose 
fabric,  type  of  incuse  and  style  of  obverse  type,  a Centaur  carrying  off  a Maenad,  recall  the  “ Re- 
volt ” class.  The  weight  however  which  is  Phokaic  (1G.32  gr.),  and  the  darker  color  of  the  gold 
(its  gold  contents  are  about  04  per  cent.,  B.  M.  C.  Ionia,  p.  xxvi),  as  well  as  the  type,  wliich  sug- 
gests Thasos  or  Thrakia,  are  against  the  association  of  the  coin  with  the  Revolt  issues.  It  has 
been  suggest(ul  tliat  the  coin  may  have  been  struck  at  Myrkinos  in  Thrakia  by  Ilistiaios,  tyrant  of 


30 


The  Eleptrum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


some  cases  differences  of  die  are  found,  but  only  in  the  cases  of  Abydos 
and  Lampsakos  do  the  variations  in  the  dies  appear  to  indicate  any 
great  interval  between  the  issues.  In  the  former  case,  the  earlier  type 
(Ph  II-  4)  is  an  eagle  on  a dotted  ground -line,  in  front  of  which  is  a 
dolphin,  downwards.  The  reverse  has  a much  smaller  incuse  than  is 
usual  on  the  Alliance  issues,  the  cross -lines  being  barely  discernible, 
and  the  fabric  is  decidely  globular.  The  second  type  (PI.  II.  4a)  which 
the  larger  incuse  and  the  style  of  the  obverse  prove  to  be  later,  is  an 
eagle  standing  on  a hare,  enclosed  in  a circle  of  dots  (cf.  B.  M.  C.  Ionia, 
PI.  I.  23) . A third  variety  of  slightly  more  advanced  style,  has  an  eagle 
standing  on  a dotted  ground -line  (Samm.  Warren,  pi.  XXXVII.  1737) . 
This  latter  coin  seems  later  than  the  other  two  (note  the  pose  of  the 
legs,  twist  of  the  neck  and  more  conventionalized  wing)  although,  ar- 
tistically, it  is  interior  to  the  fine  type  of  the  eagle  on  the  hare  (see  the 
Brit.  Mus.  example) . The  question  that  now  arises  is,  do  these  differ- 
ences of  style,  indicative  of  a certain  lapse  of  time,  offer  any  difficulty 
to  the  theory  that  the  coins  are  all  “ Kevolt”  issues,  i.  e.,  struck  between 
the  period  ca.  500-494  B.  C.f  I should  think,  probably  not.  The  re- 
verses of  the  second  and  third  types  of  Abydos  are  entirely  similar  to 
those  of  the  group  coinage,  and  as  for  the  reverse  of  the  first  type,  we 
have  only  to  turn  to  the  Vourla  find  which  was  made  up  of  coins  closely 
contemporaneous  one  with  another,  to  find  a Chian  stater  of  similar 
fabric  and  small,  deep  incuse  associated  with  ‘ ‘ Revolt  ’ ’ staters  (Rev. 
Niim.,  1911,  pi.  I.  1.) . The  same  thing  holds  good  for  the  Lampsa- 
kene  varieties.  The  first  type  (PL  II.  1) , without  the  palmette,  has  an 
earlier  style  of  obverse  than  the  third  type  (PI.  II.  3a-3f) , and  its  re- 
verse is  smaller  than  on  both  the  second  and  third  dies.  But  the  inter- 
mediate die  (PI.  II.  2)  shows  in  what  close  succession  the  three  dies 
must  have  been  made  for  its  obverse  is  closely  allied  to  the  earliest 
type,  and  its  reverse,  while  from  a different  die,  is  a large  incuse  like 
that  of  the  third  die. 

If  it  should  nevertheless  seem  improbable  to  any  one  that  Lamp- 
sakos and  Abydos  which  were  only  drawn  into  the  Revolt  by  the  lonians 
after  it  had  started  (ca.  500-498  B.  C.),  and  were  reduced  by  Daurises 
lief  ore  the  battle  of  Lade,  494  B.  C.,  should  have  struck  coins  which 
show  such  a distinct  progress  in  style,  during  the  short  period  of  per- 

MihitoK,  Just  liefore  the  Ionian  Revolt  (cf.  (Jrote’s  History  of  Greece,  chap.  iv).  Mr.  E.  S.  G.  Rob- 
inson of  the  Rritisli  Mnsenin  kindly  showed  me  an  unpublislied  note  which  he  had  written  on  this 
stater,  whose  style  he  has  very  carefully  analyzed,  proposing  the  above  attribution.  Compare  also, 
Svoronos,  .Tour.  Inter,  de  Xum.,  1913,  pp.  270-280. 


The  Eleotrum  Coinage  op  Lamps akos 


31 


haps  four  years  at  the  most,  we  might  find  a way  to  evade  this  difficulty. 
We  might  assume,  namely,  that  the  coinage  continued,  for  a while,  even 
after  Lade.  After  the  Revolt  was  quelled  by  this  decisive  battle,  things 
were  not  so  bad  for  the  conquered  cities  (Gardner,  Jour.  Hell.  Stud. 
1901,  pp.  152,  158-9) , but  of  course  it  does  seem  extremely  doubtful  if 
the  coins  continued  to  be  struck  when  there  was  no  longer  any  imme- 
diate need  for  them.  On  the  one  hand,  if  the  tyrants  were  banished 
from  all  these  cities,^  there  would  have  been  no  lieutenant  of  the  Persian 
King  to  look  with  disfavor  upon  the  continuance  of  the  issue,  but  on  the 
other  hand  it  seems  difficult  to  find  a plausible  motive  for  the  continu  - 
ance  of  the  Revolt  coinage.  The  group  coinage,  as  we  have  it,  has 
every  appearance  of  being  a short-lived  issue.  The  differences  in  style 
which  have  been  noted,  while  worthy  of  comment,  do  not  seem  to  raise 
any  very  acute  difficulties.  If  then  these  staters  can  be  thus  dated 
within  such  narrow  limits,  we  may  use  them  as  an  invaluable  term  of 
comparison  in  the  study  of  the  chronology  of  other  anepigraphic  coins. 

Whether  the  “ Revolt  ” issues  were  all  struck  at  Chios,  or  each  in  its 
respective  mint,  is  a question  of  some  interest.  On  no  example  have  I 
remarked  an  identity  of  reverse  die  with  a Chian  reverse  which  would 
prove  the  former  to  have  been  the  case.  As  regards  Lampsakos,  we 
have  demonstrated  above  that  a divisional  coinage  in  silver  was  issued,^ 
and  this  was  probably  a local  issue  struck  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
small  transactions.  The  staters  too  were  therefore  probably  struck  in 
the  various  mints  of  the  Koinon  rather  than  at  Chios,  as  seems  also  to 
be  indicated  by  the  absence  of  a common  mint -mark.  Also,  the  analo  - 
gous  details  in  the  treatment  of  the  horse  of  the  palmette  staters  and 

1 Heroclotos  does  not  give  us  any  precise  information  as  to  tlie  reorganization  of  Ionian 
affairs  after  the  Revolt.  Mardonios,  before  setting  out  for  the  conquest  of  Greece,  deposed  the 
despots  throughout  the  various  Greek  cities  of  Ionia  (Herod.  YI.  4:?),  and  he  may  have  followed 
the  same  course  among  the  cities  of  the  Hellespont. 

^ Gardner’s  identifications  of  other  fractions  of  Revolt  staters  are  very  weak  (J.  H.  S.  1901. 
p.  157-8).  Of  Erythrai  and  Miletos  we  lack  the  Revolt  staters.  Klazomenai  had  already  begun 
her  silver  coinage  in  the  Sixth  Century,  struck  on  the  Milesian  standard  as  was  commonh’  the  case 
in  southern  Ionia.  Some  of  the  silver  coins  of  the  latter  city  must  be  issues  which  in  a general 
way  are  contemporaneous  with  the  electrum  Revolt  staters,  but  it  would  require  a careful  study  of 
the  whole  archaic,  silver  series  to  distinguish  with  nicety  which  are  the  coins  belonging  exclusively 
to  the  Revolt  period.  Chios,  while  maintaining  the  Milesian  standard  for  her  electrum,  never 
used  it  for  her  silver  coinage  which  was  struck  on  a local,  so-called  “Chian”  standard,  heavier 
than  the  Milesian.  Furthermore,  the  tetrobols  quoted  in  support  of  the  theory,  are  Transitional 
not  Archaic  coins,  as  shown  above.  As  to  electrum  subdivisions  of  the  Revolt  staters,  none  which 
have  been  put  forward  seem  to  me  to  belong  to  the  period  (the  supposed  Chian  twelfth  was  excluded 
in  note  2 to  p.  1),  except  the  hektai  of  Samos  found  at  A'ourla  (Klazomenai)  (Rev.  Num.  1911,  pi. 
I.  6-26). 


32 


The  Electrum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


the  latest  coins  of  the  regular  issue  of  Per.  I point  to  the  same  con- 
clusion. 

The  Lampsakene  staters  of  Per.  I,  consequently  must  all  he  earlier 
than  the  date  ca.  500-494  B.  C.  to  which  the  palmette  staters  have  been 
given,  for  the  latest  stater  of  the  former  group  just  precedes  in  date  the 
latter  coins,  note  particularly  the  details  of  the  types,  the  bridle,  mane, 
the  right  wing  in  two  sections  and  the  row  of  dots  between  two  lines  at 
the  termination  of  the  horse’s  body.  The  magistrate’s  letters  and  mon- 
ograms which  occur  on  these  coins,  O,  (fi  (AE) , and  p are  very  well- 
formed  letters  indeed,  and  it  might  be  objected  that  they  are  not  archaic 
enough  in  formation  to  belong  to  the  Sixth  Century.  The  type  of  the 
earliest  coin  in  the  series  is  nevertheless  rude  and  archaic,  and  the  coins 
bearing  the  letters  which  follow  this  stater  are  executed  in  the  same 
heavy,  coarse  style.  In  the  Thrako-Makedonian  region,  at  Aegai 
(Traite  IP,  pi.  XLIX.  2,  Cat.  Jameson,  pi.  XCYII.  1836)  and  in  Bisal- 
tia  (Traite  IP,  pi.  XL VII.  4) , the  monogram  n is  found  in  well -formed 
letters  (on  the  former  coins,  in  the  field  above  the  kneeling  goat,  and, 
on  the  latter,  on  a part  of  the  type,  viz.  on  the  the  haunch  of  the  horse) 
on  coins  which  are  dated  between  the  years  500  and  480  B.  C.  In  gen- 
eral, however,  magistrate’s  initials  and  monograms  are  rarely  found 
much  earlier  than  480  B.  C. 

The  reason  why  the  regular  electrum  issues  of  Lampsakos  came  to 
an  end  ca.  500  B.  C.  (only  to  be  revived  in  the  later  issue  of  I staters) 
is  doubtless  to  be  found  in  the  circumstances  of  the  Revolt  against 
Persia.  During  these  disturbances,  we  may  suppose  Lampsakos  to 
have  turned  aside  for  the  moment  in  order  to  strike  the  special  issues 
in  concert  with  the  Ionian  Koinon.  After  her  punishment  by  Persia  for 
her  part  in  the  insurrection,  and  her  subsequent  recovery,  a cessation  of 
coinage  in  the  precious  metal  would  have  been  likely.  The  archaic  elec- 
trum coinage  of  Chios  came  to  an  end  at  the  same  time.  Those  who 
believe  in  the  theory  that  the  Persian  King  exercised  a monopoly  of  the 
coinage  of  gold  (and  electrum*)  and  regard  the  issue  of  the  “Revolt” 
staters  as,  in  itself,  an  act  of  rebellion  of  the  Greek  states  against  royal 
authority,  may  try  to  find  in  this  cessation  a proof  of  their  theory.  We 
must  call  attention  again  however  to  the  fact  that  Gardner,  who  has 
most  recently  championed  this  theory,  ignored  entirely  the  existence  of 
any  electrum  coinage  of  Lampsakos  prior  to  the  I issues  of  ca.  450  B.  C., 
and  also  that  his  date  for  the  beginning  of  the  Kyzikene  electrum  series 
as  after  the  Ionic  Revolt  was  absolutely  wrong.  The  hypothesis  that 


1 Gardner,  Gold  Coinage  of  Asia. 


The  Electkum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


33 


the  Persian  monarchs  guarded  jealously  as  a sovereign  prerogative  only 
to  he  delegated  by  special  authority,  the  right  to  strike  gold  coins  was 
first  promulgated  by  Lenormant  (La  monnaie  dans  I’antiqiiite,  II.  p.  3) , 
and  since  then  has  been  rather  commonly  accepted  (Hill,  Greek  and 
Roman  Coins,  p.  84) , It  is  however  built  upon  insufficient  foundation. 
The  electrum  issues  of  Lampsakos,  and  of  Chios  and  Kyzikos,  during 
the  period  of  Persian  suzerainty  in  the  Sixth  Century,  ca.  546-498  B.  C., 
and  the  gold  coinage  of  Lampsakos  after  the  Peace  of  Antalkidas  in  387 
B.  C.,  are  in  direct  contradiction  with  this  pretended  right  of  the  Persian 
Kings,  and  cannot  be  explained  away  on  the  theory  of  exceptions.  The 
gold  staters  of  Lampsakos  (ca.  390-330  B.  C.)  which  are  of  the  same 
weight  as  the  Persian  daric,  ca.  8.42  gr.  (and  not  of  “Attic”  weight, 
ca.  8.60  gr.,  as  sometimes  stated),  constitute  an  insurmountable  argu- 
ment against  the  monopoly  theory,  for  how  would  the  Persian  King 
have  permitted  a State  which  had  but  lately  been  given  over  to  his 
absolute  authority  to  continue  the  issue  of  a coin  which  would  be  a 
serious  rival  to  the  daric  % ^ The  Lydian  and  Persian  rulers  of  the 
Greek  cities  of  Asia  Minor  never  interfered  in  the  slightest  degree  with 
the  absolute  liberty  in  matters  of  coinage,  choice  of  metal,  types  or 
legends,  of  the  autonomous  cities  or  tributary  dynasts  under  their  con- 
trol (Babelon,  Traite  IP,  Introd.  Gen.) . 

The  occasion  of  the  second  issue  of  electrum  staters  at  Lampsakos, 
the  I staters,  is  not  easy  to  determine.  These  coins  like  the  contempo- 
rary stater  with  the  vine  wreath  of  Chios,  look  like  a special  issue  such 
as  might  be  occasioned  by  a sudden  outbreak  of  hostilities,  and  if  their 
style  permitted,  we  should  have  suggested  that  the  revolt  of  Chios  and 
Lampsakos  against  the  Athenian  Hegemony,  ca.  412  B.  C.,  furnished  a 
plausible  explanation  of  the  issues.  The  style  however  not  permitting 
such  a late  date,  we  may  surmise  that  the  I staters  were  specially  struck 
to  supply  the  need  for  a coin  which  would  be  convenient  at  the  time 
when  Lampsakos  ceased  to  contribute  her  tax  to  the  Athenian  Confed- 
eracy, in  ships  and  men,  and  substituted  money  payments.^  If  Chios 
and  Lampsakos  combined  together  (and  the  coincidence  of  the  same 
weight  standard  at  both  cities  would  favor  this  supposition)  to  enjoy 
some  of  the  commercial  benefits  obtained  by  Kyzikos  through  her  coin- 

1 Babelon,  Perses  Ach^m . p.  LXXIII.,  “ L’or  des  Grecs,  sur  le  terrain  commercial  et  dcoiio- 
mique,  vient  declarer  la  guerre  k For  des  Perses  ; la  lampsacbne  est  crdde  pour  lutter  contre  le 
darique.” 

2 Lampsakos  paid  12  Talents  annually,  and  her  quota  of  tribute  is  preserved  in  the  Plioros- 
lists  beginning  with  the  year  451  B.  C.  The  I staters  may  have  been  struck  as  early  as  460  B.  C., 
when  we  may  assume  that  the  payments  began  to  be  commuted  in  specie. 


The  Electrum  Coinage  of  Lampsakos 


34 

age/  they  must  soon  have  found  it  futile  to  attempt  to  rival  the  Kyzikene 
mint  in  its  pre-eminence  as  a mint  issuing  a world  currency  under  the 
special  patronage  of  Athens  (see  Babelon,  Traite  IF,  p.  25,  “Cyzique 
surtout  devient,  en  quelque  sorte,  la  seconde  ville  monetaire  de  1’ empire 
athenien  ”) . 

AGNES  BALDWIN. 

New  A^ork,  1914. 


ADDENDA 

M.  S voroiios  in  his  most  interesting  and  revolutionary  paper,  Nmnismatique  de 
la  Peonie,  etc.,  J.  I.  N.  1913,  p.  276,  remarks  en  jjassant  that  eight  of  the  ten  known 
specimens  of  the  electrum  hemi-hektai  of  the  owl  type  (cf.  p.  1,  note  1,  of  the  present 
paper)  have  come  from  Athens  and  Euboia,  and  the  argument  based  on  provenance  as 
to  the  origin  of  these  coins  is  thus  materially  strengthened.  If  these  coins  do  belong 
to  Athens,  their  weight  system  presents  a problem.  Svoronos,  quite  naturally,  casts  a 
doubt  upon  Babelon’s  claim  that  the  coins  are  of  Phokai’c  weight,  and  yet  the  sugges- 
tion that  they  are  hektai  of  a Euboi'c  stater  of  8.73  gr.  (Hill,  Historical  Greek  Coins) 
must  be  rejected.  Since  the  important  discovery  of  electrum  coins  in  1894  on  the 
island  of  Samos,  where  the  Euboi'c  system  for  electrum  finds  its  chief  aiiplication,  the 
supposed  stater  of  Samos  (B.  M.  C.,  Ionia,  pi.  HI.  20)  has  become  known  as  a hemi- 
stater  ; the  staters  in  the  find,  characterized  by  two  oblong  incuses,  weighing  17.46  gr., 
and  thus  corresponding,  as  they  should,  to  the  weight  of  the  tetradrachms  of  Chalkis, 
the  chief  mint  of  Euboia,  where  the  Euboi'c  system  was  employed  for  silver.  But, 
even  as  hemi-hektai  of  the  Euboi'c  system,  as  it  is  now  known,  the  owl  coins,  of  which 
the  heaviest  speeimen  recorded  reaches  1.36  gr.,  fall  short  of  the  norm,  i.  e.  1.45  to 
1.40  gr. 

In  the  same  article,  pp.  276-280,  Svoronos  makes  the  suggestion  that  two  of  the 
electrum  staters  which  in  this  paper  are  assumed  to  represent  the  coinage  of  the  Ionian 
Revolt,  to  wit,  the  staters  bearing  as  types  the  sow  and  the  free  horse,  nos.  7 and  10 
of  PI.  II,  may  belong  to  Paionia.  But,  seeing  that  staters  of  this  class  have  been 
found  in  Asia  Minor  in  the  hoard  unearthed  at  Vourla  (Klazomenai),  and  that  speci- 
mens of  these  very  types  occurred  in  the  find,  this  conjecture  is  rather  improbable. 

1 The  reverse  of  the  Chian  stater  in  Berlin,  p.  1.5  fig.  4,  is  of  that  type  of  incuse  known  as 
mill-sail,  peculiar  to  the  Kyzikene  electrum  coinage.  The  adoption  of  a foreign  form  of  incuse  by 
Chios  is  certainly  an  anomaly.  Chios  may  have  considered  it  worth  while  for  commercial  reasons 
to  plagiarize  a reverse  so  well-known  without  intending  her  own  staters  to  be  fraudulently  accepted 
as  equivalent  to  the  Kyzikene,  which  of  course  they  were  not. 


Plate  I 


12^- 


12  A 


12  k 


12  a 


12  b 


X2C 


12  d 


12  f 


ELECTRUM  COINAGE  OF  LAMPSAKOS 


Plate  II 


LAMPSAKENE  AND  ALLIED  COINAGES 


AMERICAN 

JOURNAL  OF  NUMISMATICS 

VOLUME  LIU.  THIRD  (fIIVAL)  PART 


LAMPSAKOS;  THE  GOLD  STATEKS, 
SILpR  AND  BRONZE  COINAGES 

By  AGNES  BALDWIN 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  AMERICAN  NIIMISMATIC  SOCIETY 
BROADWAY  AT  15BTII  STREET 
NEW  YORK 
1924 


COPYRIGHT  BY 

THE  AMERICAN  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

1924 


THE  AMERICAN  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY 

Broadway  at  156th  Street 
New  York 

Organized  1858  Incorporated  1865 


W.  Gedney  Beatty 
Bauman  L.  Belden 
Henry  Russell  Drowns 
Robert  James  Eidlitz 
William  B.  Osgood  Field 


COUNCIL 
Albert  Gallatin 
John  W.  Garrett 
Harrold  E.  Gillingham 
Archer  M.  Huntington 
Edward  T.  Newell 

OFFICERS 

President 

Edward  T.  Newell 


Stephen  H.  P.  Pell 
John  Reilly,  Jr. 
Herbert  Scoville 
Elliott  Smith 
William  H.  Woodin 


Governors 

Henry  Russell  Drowns  Archer  M.  Huntington 

William  B.  Osgood  Field  Edward  T.  Newell 

John  Reilly,  Jr. 

Secretary  and  Librarian  Treasurer 

Sydney  P.  Noe  John  Reilly,  Jr. 


Curator 

Howland  Wood 


Associate  Curator  of  Ancient  Coins 
Agnes  Baldwin  Brett 


MEMBERSHIP 

The  annual  dues  of  Fellows  (limited  to  one  hundred  and  fifty)  are  Fifteen  Dollars, 
and  those  of  Associates,  Five  Dollars,  payable  in  advance.  The  sum  of  two  hundred  and  fifty 
Dollars  entitles  one  to  Life  Fellowship,  and  one  hundred  Dollars  to  Associate  Life  Member- 
ship; and  secures  exemption  from  further  dues. 

Applications  for  Membership  should  be  sent  to  the  Secretary,  at  the  above  address. 

All  collectors  and  students  are  cordiallj'  invited  to  make  use  of  the  extensive  Library 
of  the  Society,  and  every  facility  will  be  offered  to  numismatists  in  examining  and  studying 
the  large  collection  of  coins  and  medals  that  may  not  be  on  exhibition. 

Open  to  the  Public  daily  (except  Monday),  2 P.  M.  to  5 P.  M. 


THE 

GOLD  STATERS  OE  LAMPSAKOS 


By  AGNES  BALDWIN 

Attribution  of  the  Electrum  Staters  op  Lampsakos 

At  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  writer’s  paper  on  “The  Electrum 
Coinage  of  Lampsakos”/  it  was  proposed  to  follow  this  up  with  a revised 
paper  on  the  gold  stater  coinage,  which  had  formed  the  subject  of  an  earlier 
essay  by  the  writer,  appearing  in  the  Journal  Internationale  de  Numis- 
matique,^  1902.  The  plates  for  this  new  publication  of  the  beautiful  gold 
staters  have  long  been  ready,  but  many  causes  have  operated  to  delay  it. 
In  the  meantime,  since  the  issue  of  the  monograph  on  the  electrum  staters, 
their  attribution  to  Lampsakos  has  been  strongly  attacked  by  the  late 
M.  Svoronos  in  his  work  on  the  early  Paionian  coinages  of  the  district  which 
was  later  called  Macedonia.^  With  his  accustomed  originality  and  breadth 
of  vision,  M.  Svoronos  has  uncovered  a whole  new  chapter  in  Greek  numis- 
matics. Besides  re-attributing  and  assigning  to  definite  mint-places  and 
tribes  many  of  the  uncertain  silver  coins  known  vaguely  as  Thrako-Mace- 
donian,  he  suggests  a new  home  for  many  gold  (electrum)  issues  previously 
attributed  to  Asia  Minor.  Most  of  these  gold  coins  are  anepigraphic  and 
have  always  been  classed  as  Uncertain  of  Asia  Minor  {loc.  cit.,  pi.  xv,  17-27, 
pi.  xvi,  1-27).^  But  now,  besides  removing  from  Asia  Minor  the  very 
primitive  electrum  coins  which  bear  chiefly  geometrical  or  floral  designs 
as  types,  M.  Svoronos  proposes  to  assign  to  Macedonia  also  the  well-known 
electrum  staters  bearing  the  familiar  types  of  Lampsakos  and  Chios,  forepart 
of  Pegasus  and  Sphinx. 

There  are  probably  few  attributions  of  uninscribed  electrum  staters 
whose  place  is  regarded  as  more  securely  established  than  the  Chian  and 
Lampsakene  staters.  In  the  writer’s  monograph  on  the  electrum  coins  of 
Lampsakos,  the  sound  basis  for  the  attribution  of  the  latter  coins  was  there 

1 American  Numismatic  Society  Monograph,  No.  1, 1914,  hereafter  referred  to  as  “Electrum  Coinage.” 

^ Abbreviated  to  J.  I.  N. 

5 L’Hellenisme  primitif  de  la  Macedoine,  J.  I.  N.  1919. 

* In  addition  to  the  instances  of  a northern  provenance  cited  by  M.  Svoronos,  the  small  find  of  archaic 
gold  coins  noted  in  the  Cat.  H.  P.  Borrell,  1852,  should  be  cited.  ' Types  of  Svoronos,  pi.  xvi,  1-3,  a square 
in  relief,  pi.  xvi,  10,  raised  square  with  crescents,  were  found  in  the  vicinity  of  Saloniki.  Other  archaic  gold 
coins  from  this  find  bear  the  types,  rude  Gorgoii  head,  head  of  a horse  and  head  of  a fish,  Borrell,  39-42. 


2 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


set  forth  — the  fact  that  the  electrum  staters  bear  the  same  civic  device, 
the  arms  of  the  city,  as  the  later  gold  staters,  also  uninscribed,  a badge 
common  to  other  cities  of  Mysia,  and  amply  confirmed  as  the  parasema  of 
the  town  by  an  inscription  relating  to  Lampsakos  and  headed  by  a carved 
figure  of  the  half-Pegasos^;  the  entirely  palpable  continuity  of  style  of  the 
uninscribed  electrum  and  gold,  and  the  bronze  issues  inscribed  aAMYA; 
and,  finally,  the  very  valuable  evidence  for  the  attribution  of  the  gold  and 
electrum  staters  — namely,  the  inscriptions  which  prove  beyond  doubt 
that  Lampsakos  struck  staters  in  electrum  and  gold  in  the  Fifth  and  Fourth 
Centuries  b.c.,  respectively.^  These  inscriptions  prove  that  Lampsakos 
had  an  electrum  stater  currency  c.  450  b.c.,  and  a gold  stater  currency, 
c.  350  B.C.;  and,  when  there  are  at  hand  coins  which  exactly  fit  the  require- 
ments, it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  any  writer  would  have  the  courage  to 
propose  to  separate  the  electrum  issues  from  the  gold.  M.  Svoronos  admits 
the  gold  and  yet  will  not  allow  the  electrum.  He  proposes  to  assign  all  of 
the  electrum  staters,  both  those  of  Milesian  weight,  stater  of  14.02  gr. 
(217  grains)  with  the  palmette  symbol  (fig.  1),  and  those  of  Lampsakene 
weight,  stater  of  15.36  gr.  (237  grains)  with  the  vine  wreath  around  the 
type  (fig.  2),  to  Myrkinos  in  the  Pangaian  district. 


Fig.  1 Fig.  2® 


On  account  of  the  difference  in  weight  standard  and  the  difference  in 
types,  both  obverse  and  reverse,  it  has  long  been  considered  doubtful  whether 
the  palmette  staters  belong  to  the  mint  of  Lampsakos.  They  were  excluded 
from  the  regular  series  in  the  writer’s  article  on  the  electrum  coinage,  as  it 
is  difficult  to  fit  them  into  the  series  and  because  they  appear  to  belong 
rather  with  a group  of  electrum  staters  with  varying  obverses  of  uncertain 
mint  but  of  homogeneous  fabric,  alloy,  weight  and  incuse  type,  which 
Mr.  P.  Gardner  and  M.  Jameson  regard  as  the  coinage  of  the  Ionian  Revolt.^ 

1 Electrum  Coinage,  p.  12. 

2 Electrum  Coinage,  p.  10.  Inscr.  Gr.,  I,  301-311.  The  date  of  the  earliest  of  these  Accounts  of  the 
Epistatai  of  Athens  has  now  been  fixed  as  447  b.c.  (Woodward,  Jour.  Hell.  Stud.  1914,  p.  277).  They 
contain  mention  of  seventy  Lampsakene  and  twenty-seven  Kyzikene  “gold”,  i.e.  electrum,  staters,  since 
Xpv<rb%  is  naturally  used  to  describe  electrum.  Pure  gold  coins  were  not  coined  as  early  as  this.  The 
Boiotian  inscription  of  355-351  b.c.  refers  to  the  gold  staters.  Inscr.  Gr.,  VII,  2418. 

8 This  coin  is  the  Pozzi  specimen.  Cat.  Pozzi,  pi.  Ixvii,  2225.  It  is  very  close  in  style  to  Nos.  9-11 
Electrum  Coinage,  PI.  I,  and  may  be  classed  as  No.  10“  of  Group  I. 

* Jour.  Hell.  Stud.  1911,  p.  151  f..  Rev.  Num.  1911,  p.  60  f.,  and  Electrum  Coinage,  p.  24  f. 


The  Gold  Statees  op  Lampsakos 


3 


Although  the  Revolt  theory  seems  to  have  met  with  rather  wide  acceptance, 
M.  Svoronos  points  out  the  weak  points  of  the  hypothesis,  and  proceeds  to 
assign  all  of  the  staters  of  this  class  to  different  mints  of  Paionia.  It  is 
not  incumbent  upon  the  writer  to  defend  the  Revolt  theory,  interesting  as 
it  is,  and  plausible,  too,  in  many  respects.  That  defense  may  safely  be  left 
to  the  originators  of  the  theory.  Our  first  concern  is  not  with  the  palmette 
staters,  which  are  very  awkward  to  explain  as  products  of  the  Lampsakene 
mint,  but  with  the  heavier  staters  which  have  long  been  regarded  as  con- 
stituting the  regular  issues  of  Lampsakos,  the  %/3uo-oi)  aTarr)pe<i  Aap-^a/crjvoi  of 
the  Attic  inscriptions. 

It  would  seem  that  the  special  reason  which  led  M.  Svoronos  to  assign 
these  staters  to  Paionia,  is  his  interpretation  of  certain  letters  and  mono- 
grams, which  occur  on  these  staters,  as  the  initials  of  the  names  of  tyrants 
or  rulers.  Having  already  in  his  first  essay  on  the  subject^  developed  his 
theory  of  the  close  political  and  commercial  relations  existing  between 
Miletos,  the  leading  city  of  Ionia,  and  the  Pangaian  district  in  the  early 
Sixth  Century  b.c.,  and  having  thereafter  evolved  his  theory  of  Ionian 
influence  upon  the  art  of  the  Paionian  coinage  through  the  agency  of  the 
tyrant,  Histiaios  of  Miletos,  M.  Svoronos  suddenly  discovered  the  Lamp- 
sakene stater  with  the  monogram  It  is  only  fair  to  state  here  that 
when  M.  Svoronos  was  writing  his  epoch-making  work  which  will  undoubt- 
edly revolutionize  many  of  our  basic  theories  on  the  beginnings  of  coinage, 
he  had  not  seen  the  writer’s  paper  on  the  electrum  coinage  of  Lampsakos. 
Otherwise,  he  might  have  hesitated  to  conclude  that  the  monogram  A 
represented  the  initial  letters  of  the  name  of  Aristagoras  of  Miletos  who 
was  dynast  of  Myrkinos,  situated  at  the  foot  of  Mt.  Pangaion,  during  the 
early  part  of  the  Fifth  Century;  for  the  occurrence  of  other  letters  and 
another  monogram  on  these  same  staters,  rather  nullifies  his  conjecture 
that  a particular  one  must  represent  a tyrant’s  name.  One  would  be 
obliged  to  provide  tyrant’s  names  beginning  with  0^,  with  and  with 
f?i  (AE)®;  and,  also,  to  provide  an  historical  background  to  account  for 
their  issuing  electrum  coinage  in  Paionia,  as  M.  Svoronos  has  so  persuasively 
and  learnedly  done  in  the  case  of  Aristagoras. 

1 Num.  de  la  Peonie,  J.  I.  N.  1913,  p.  193. 

^ Electrum  Coinage,  PI.  I,  5,  on  the  neck  of  the  horse  and  again  in  a square  of  the  reverse.  M.  Svoronos 
speaks  of  this  stater  as  unedited  (loc.  cit.,  p.  238,  No.  3),  but  the  stater  was  published  for  the  first  time  by 
the  present  writer  to  when-  M.  Jameson  kindly  sent  a cast  in  1913.  This  monogram  on  a stater  in  the 
Jameson  Collection  and  other  letters  and  a monogram  on  staters  in  the  Brussels  and  London  collections, 
hitherto  unpublished,  were  first  made  known  in  the  writer’s  Electrum  Coinage. 

® Electrum  Coinage,  PI.  I,  2.. 

^ Loc.  cit.,  PI.  I,  4. 

® Loc.  cit.,  PI.  I,  3. 


4 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


As  regards  the  attribution  of  the  staters  of  Lampsakos  with  the  letter 
I below  the  horse/  to  Boges,  general  of  Xerxes,  485-479  b.c.,  this  sounds 
distinctly  like  an  afterthought  — a sort  of  corollary  to  the  Aristagoras 
theory.  Furthermore,  the  I staters  are  not  of  the  same  period  as  the 
earlier  Lampsakene  staters  of  c.  525-500  b.c.,  but  are  to  be  dated  c.  450  b.c.^ 
which  is  too  late  for  the  governorship  of  Boges.  Again,  that  Boges  as 
satrap  of  Myrkinos  for  Xerxes  should  sign  his  coinage  with  i as  the  initial 
of  the  king’s  name,  is  very  improbable.  It  is  at  least  unparalleled  elsewhere. 

M.  Svoronos  even  pushes  his  theory  so  far  as  to  deny  the  suitability  of 
the  type,  a half-Pegasos  enclosed  in  a vine  wreath,  to  Lampsakos.  Pegasos 
myths  and  Pegasos  and  the  vine  are  shown  by  him  to  be  eminently  at  home 
in  the  Pangaian  district.  But  we  have  good  ancient  testimony  as  to  the 
renown  of  the  Lampsakene  vineyards.  Strabo,^  speaking  of  a neighboring 
town,  says  ‘‘For  their  country  abounds  with  vines,  as  also  the  country  on 
their  confines,  namely,  the  territory  of  the  Pariani  and  of  the  Lampsaceni. 
It  was  for  this  reason  that  Xerxes  assigned  Lampsacus  to  Themistocles  to 
supply  him  with  wine”^.  The  coin  types  of  Lampsakos  also  bear  witness 
to  the  importance  of  Dionysiac  cults  there.  Dionysos,  bearded  or  youth- 
ful, occurs  on  the  gold  staters,  and  the  Maenad  head,  an  uncommon  subject 
on  Greek  coins,  is  quite  a distinctive  feature  on  the  coinage.  Just  as  at 
Histiaia  in  Euboia  which  was  called  TroXi/o-ra^uXo?  “rich  in  grapes”  by 
HomeP,  the  Maenad  head  wreathed  with  the  vine  is  the  principal  type, 
so  at  Lampsakos  the  frequent  occurrence  of  the  Maenad  head  denotes  that 
the  vine  was  widely  cultivated  there.  Thoukidides  I,  138,  says  of  Lamp- 
sakos, eSo/cei  jap  TroXvoivoTarov  ro)V  rare  elvai.  Again,  the  Cult  of  DionysOS- 
Priapos®,  who  is  represented  on  the  later  coinage,  on  the  tetradrachm  series 
beginning  c.  190  b.c.  and  on  the  Imperial  issues,  betokens  a community 
whose  chief  product  was  the  grape.  As  to  Pegasos,  this  type,  whatever  de- 
termined its  choice  as  parasema  of  the  city,’^  is  so  evidently  Lampsakene 
(witness  the  later  coinage),  that  we  need  not  be  disturbed  by  M.  Svoronos’ 
urgent  arguments  in  favor  of  a Paionian  habitat  for  Pegasos.  Finally,  the 
silver  coinage  of  Lampsakos  was  struck  on  the  same  weight  standard  as 

' Electrum  Coinage,  PI.  I,  12a-k. 

^ Loc.  cit.,  p.  13  f. 

2 Geogr.,  Bk.  XIII,  12. 

* So  also  Plutarch,  Them.  29;  Thouk.  I,  138,  and  Athenaeus  I,  29. 

6 Iliad  II,  537. 

® Athen.  1,  54,  Ttfiarat  di  irapa  Kap.ypaK'qvois  6 Ilplairos  6 avrbs  S)v  tQ  Aiovii(T(p,  “PriapOS  is  worshipped 
by  the  Lampsakenes,  being  idehtical  with  Dionysos.” 

According  to  Gruppe,  Griech.  Mythologie,  I,  p.  166,  Pegasos,  who  in  Hesiodic  myth  was  begotten  of 
Poseidon  and  Medusa  at  the  source  of  Okeanos,  is  an  image  of  the  realm  of  Poseidon.  As  a sj^mbol  of  the 
sea  and  commerce,  Pegasos  is  an  eminently  suitable  badge  of  a great  sea-port  and  commercial  center  like 
Lampsakos. 


The  Gold  Staters  op  Lampsakos 


5 


the  heavy  weight  electmm  staters  as  is  shown  in  the  section  dealing  with 
these  issues  (see  below) . 

Having  now  reestablished  the  traditional  attribution  of  the  heavy  Pegasi 
to  Lampsakos,  let  us  consider  the  light-weight  Pegasos  staters.  M.  Svoronos 
suggests  that  the  paimette  stater  (see  above,  fig.  1)  were  struck  by  Histiaios, 
tyrant  of  Miletos,’  in  the  town  of  Myrkinos  on  the  Strymon  at  the  time 
when  this  city  belonged  personally  to  him,  513-493  b.c.^  In  this  case,  a 
Paionian  origin  is  based  upon  the  general  claim  that  gold  coinage  is  bound 
to  have  been  issued  in  a country  of  gold  mines,  and  also  upon  the  argument 
that  the  Pegasos  myth  is  strongly  localized  in  the  country  round  Mt. 
Pangaion. 

Now,  just  at  the  psychological  moment  there  has  come  to  our  knowl- 
edge a stater  of  the  paimette  class,  lacking,  however  the  characteristic 
^ symbol,  (fig.  1)  as  is  also  the  case  with  the  Vienna  specimen.^  This 
stater,  fig.  3,  recently  acquired  by  Mr.  E.  T.  Newell  who  kindly  allows  its 


Fig.  3 


publication  here,  is  unique  in  bearing  on  the  obverse  two  symbols  common 
to  the  coinage  assigned  by  M.  Svoronos  to  Paionia.  These  are  the  symbols 
which  M.  Svoronos  calls  the  Pangaian  rose,  below  the  horse,  and  a four- 
pointed  star,  “I”,  to  the  left  of  the  type.® 

The  style  of  the  obverse  of  this  stater  is  very  close  indeed  to  that  of 
the  half-Pegasos  of  the  Vienna  stater.  In  fact  the  same  obverse  die,  altered 
later  by  the  addition  of  the  two  symbols,  may  have  been  used  in  striking 
these  staters,  a point  not  quite  demonstrable  to  a satisfactory  degree  on 
account  of  the  worn  condition  of  the  obverse  of  the  new  coin.  The  reverses 
of  both  staters  are  at  any  rate  unquestionably  from  the  same  die.  As  has 
been  noted,  they  differ  from  the  other  Pegasos  staters  of  this  group  in  not 
bearing  the  paimette  symbol.  They  are  a shade  earlier  in  style,  and  the 
smaller,  deeper  incuse  also  distinguishes  them  from  the  other  issues  (Elec- 

Histiaios’  tenure  of  Myrkinos  could  not  have  been  for  long.  Cf.  P.  N.  Ure’s  remarks  in  the  Origin 
of  Tyranny,  p.  61,  “Just  after  the  Persian  conquest  of  Thrace  and  Paionia,  Histiaeus  of  Miletus,  one  of 
the  Persians  king’s  Greek  v.issals,  almost  succeeded  in  securing  from  the  Great  King  possession  of  Myrcinus, 
a mining  centre  in  the  district  from  which  Peisistratus  had  got  so  much  wealth.  He  was  in  fact  granted 
the  gift  by  Darius,  who  however,  was  persuaded  by  the  far-sighted  Megabazus  to  recall  it.” 

^ Electrum  Coinage,  PI.  II,  1. 

® J.  I.  N.  1919,  pi.  i,  10,  11;  pi.  ii,  10,  11,  13-15,  Derrones;  pi.  hi,  1,  2,  23,  Laiaioi,  etc.;  pi.  xvi,  28 
32-34,  39,  43,  etc.  Pierians  of  Mt.  Pangaion. 


6 


The  American  Journal  op  Numismatics 


tmm  Coinage,  PI.  II,  2-3  f.,  and  p.  30).  Now  as  these  two  staters  evidently 
belong  to  the  same  mint,  and  as  the  newly  discovered  piece  bears  symbols 
which  M.  Svoronos  has  shown  to  be  distinctively  Paionian,  there  would 
seem  to  be  no  alternative  but  to  attribute  them  to  a mint  in  the  Paionian 
region — whether  to  Myrkinos  or  not,  is  uncertain  with  the  evidence  at 
present  available.  The  date  at  which  Myrkinos  was  held  by  Histiaios, 
according  to  M.  Svoronos,  513-493  b.c.  is  appropriate  for  the  style. 

These  two  staters,  however,  are  not  the  coins  which  M.  Svoronos 
selected  as  examples  of  the  coinage  of  Myrkinos  under  the  tyranny  of 
Histiaios.^  The  coins  which  he  cites  {op.  cit,,  p.  237,  pi.  xvii,  27)  are  those 
bearing  the  palmette  (fig.  1) . If  these  half-Pegasos  staters  which,  according 
to  the  Revolt  theory,  are  the  Lampsakene  issues  of  the  Ionian  Revolt  coinage, 
are  to  be  transferred  to  the  Paionian  region,  all  of  the  other  electrum  staters 
of  the  same  fabric  and  weight  belonging  to  the  Revolt  group,  must  be  given 
the  same  origin,  and  M.  Svoronos  has  found  a Paionian  mint  for  each  type. 
This  means  the  total  abandonment  of  the  Ionian  League  theory  heretofore 
so  generally  accepted. 

The  discussion  of  the  arguments  which  M.  Svoronos  brings  to  bear  in 
his  brilliant  attack  upon  this  theory  {op.  cit.,  p.  211  f.)  is  not  properly  speaking 
a Lampsakene  question,  and  need  not  detain  us  long.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  M.  Svoronos  has  shown, up  with  great  skill  the  weak  points  of 
this  theory.  Whether,  however,  his  new  attributions  constitute  a better 
solution  of  the  problem  than  the  Revolt  theory  supplied,  seems  at  present 
an  open  question.  They  are  very  daring  and  very  ingenious,  and  after 
reading  the  counter-arguments  one  cannot  help  feeling  one’s  confidence  in 
the  Revolt  theory  considerably  shaken,  even  though  this  theory  is  so  well 
supported  by  the  provenance  of  certain  specimens,  namely  those  which 
occurred  in  the  Vourla  (Klazomenai)  hoard. ^ 

As  we  have  given  two  of  the  Pegasos  staters  of  the  light-weight  class  to 
Paionia  on  the  ground  of  symbols  alone,  it  is  but  natural  to  investigate  the 
palmette  symbol  which  occurs  on  the  remaining  Pegasi.  This  symbol  is 
rare  on  Greek  coins,  although  so  common  in  Greek  architectural  decoration 
and  in  vase-painting.  A survey  of  the  origin  and  evolution  of  this  decorative 
motive  in  Greek  art  enables  one  to  recognize  as  identical  a number  of  var- 
iants on  the  coins  which  at  first  glance  are  quite  dissimilar.  On  Greek 
pottery  of  Rhodos,  Naukratis,  Melos  and  other  wares  of  the  Ionian  class, 
the  motive  occurs  in  a developed,  fully  Hellenized  form.  In  Perrot  and 

* The  Vienna  stater  (Sestini,  Stateri  Antichi,  p.  62,  No.  1)  was  first  published  in  Electrum  Coinage, 
PI.  II,  1,  which  had  not  been  seen  by  M.  Svoronos  when  he  wrote  his  Hellenisme  primitif,  and  the  stater 
with  the  Paionian  symbols  first  became  known  a few  months  after  the  appearance  of  his  great  work. 

^ Rev.  Num.  1911,  p.  60. 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


7 


Chipiez’s  History  of  Art,  IX,  p.  452,  it  is  stated  that  the  first  idea,  i.e.,  the 
ultimate  origin  of  the  design,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Assyrian  palmette.  This 
decorative  design  was  derived  from  the  conventionalization  of  the  palm-tree, 
in  the  familiar  tree-of-life  designs  (see  Ward’s  Seal  Cylinders,  figs.  668-673). 
However,  from  the  fact  that  the  palmette  appears  in  such  intimate  connec- 
tion with  the  lotus  forms  (Perrot  et  Chipiez,  IX,  fig.  213,  an  inverted  lotus- 
palmette  combination),  on  the  early  Ionian  pottery,  the  more  advanced 
Ionian  wares,  on  Corinthian  vases  (Perrot  et  Chipiez,  IX,  fig.  359,  “un  lacis 
de  fleurs  de  lotus  et  de  palmettes”),  and  then  continuously  in  Greek  archi- 
tecture and  vase-painting  down  to  the  latest  period,  one  is  more  inclined, 
with  Goodyear,^  to  seek  the  origin  of  the  palmette  motive  in  Cyprus  where 
undoubtedly  a form  of  purely,  local  development  was  evolved  under  the 
influence  of  Egyptian  capital-forms  which  were  composed  of  the  lotus,  lily 
and  papyrus  motives.^  Even  in  Mycenean  times,  Dussaud  shows  (op.  cit., 
figs.  198,  202)  the  Egyptian  fleur-de-lis  with  spirals  was  imitated  on  local 
Cypriote  products.  Early  Cypriote  coins  struck  before  c.  480  b.c.,  bear 
the  palmette  motive,  and  the  lotus  with  spirals,  which  are  beyond  doubt  a 
survival  from  early  Cypriote  art.^ 

The  palmette  occurs  on  the  following  archaic  coins : Derronian  tribes 
of  Paionia  (Svoronos,  op.  cit.,  pi.  i,  10,  11 ; pi.  ii,  1-4),  in  the  interstices  of  the 
large  triskeles  which  forms  the  reverse  type;  Derronians  (Svoronos,  op.  cit., 
pi.  i,  12)  below  the  ox-cart  on  the  obverse;  Crestonians  of  Paionia  {ibid., 
pi.  xiv,  11,  12),  a half-palmette  which  Svoronos  (p.  118)  calls  aphlaston  aile, 
after  Imhoof-Blumer,  Monn.  gr.,  p.  105,  No.  169,  who  recognized  that  this 
symhole  curieux  occurred  also  on  the  octodrachm  of  the  Derronians,  obverse, 
man  in  cart  drawn  by  two  oxen  (Svoronos,  p.  7,  No. .7,  “sous  les  boeufs  une 
longue  palme  ou  aplustre”);  Mende,  in  Macedonia,  (Cat.  Naville  IV, 
Geneva,  1922,  pi.  xviii,  438)  under  the  Dionysiac  ass  of  the  obverse ; Idalium, 
Cyprus  (British  Museum  Catalogue,  pi.  v,  38)  beneath  the  body  and  raised 


Fig.  4 


1 Grammar  of  the  Lotus,  pi.  xi,  1. 

^ Dussaud,  Les  Civilisations  Pre-helleniques,  p.  303  f. 

^ Idalium,  B.M.C.  Cyprus,  pi.  v,  3-8.  Poulsen,  Der  Orient  und  die  friihgriechische  Kunst,  p.  29, 
also  assigns  the  same  origin  to  the  formal  palmette  device  of  Cypriote  art,  although  he  ascribes  this  art 
to  the  Phoenicians. 


8 


The  American  Journal  op  Numismatics 


fore-paw  of  the  Sphinx;  and  finally,  the  Pegasos  electmm  staters  under 
discussion.  Later  in  the  Fifth  Century  are  the  following  instances : Mende, 
450-424  B.C.,  a rare  tetradrachm  type,  recently  known  through  the  hoard 
of  coins  found  at  Mende,  fig.  4,  (Cat.  Naville  IV,  pi.  xviii,  442,  also,  Zeit. 
f.  Num.,  xxxiv,  pi.  hi,  26)  with  a design  of  four  palmettos  in  a square,  on  the 
reverse;  Salamis  and  Paphos,  Cyprus,  480-450  b.c.,  the  ^‘enclosed”  palmetto 
in  a corner  of  the  reverse,  British  Museum  Catalogue,  pi.  x,  13  and  pi.  vii, 
6-9)^;  Thasos,  411-350  b.c.  (Cat.  Naville,  vi,  Bement  Coll.,  pi.  xxx,  860) 
a drachm  with  ‘‘enclosed”  palmetto  on  reverse ; Gela,  466-413  b.c.  in  the 
exergue  of  the  reverse  (British  Museum  Catalogue,  Sicily,  p.  69,  No.  36, 
vignette)  a palmetto  in  the  center,  with  lateral  half-palmettes,  which  help 
to  explain  the  half-palmettes  of  the  Crestonian  and  Derronian  coins  above 
cited ; Metapontum,  466-413  b.c.  (British  Museum  Catalogue,  Italy,  p.  249, 
No.  86,  vignette) , symbol,  in  field,  of  the  freer  type  without  the  spirals, 
often  called  “honeysuckle  pattern”;  Corinth,  420-338  b.c.  (British  Museum 
Catalogue,  Corinth,  p.  15,  pi.  iv,  7-9)  various  designs  with  spirals.^ 

From  the  foregoing  we  may  conclude  that  while  the  palmetto  symbol, 
so  rare  on  coins,  is  found  quite  frequently  in  the  Macedonian  (Paionian) 
district  at  an  early  date  as  well  as  in  Cyprus,  which  may  be  the  locality  where 
the  art  motive  was  first  evolved,  still  there  is  no  compelling  reason  for 
regarding  this  symbol  on  the  Pegasos  staters  (and  the  stater  with  the  cock, 
Electrum  Coinage,  PI.  II,  5,  on  which  it  is  also  found)  as  evidence  of  a 
northern  mint.  One  might  be  tempted  to  speculate  from  its  association 
with  the  triskeles,  a solar  symbol,  on  the  Derronian  pieces,  where  in  one 
instance  it  alternates  with  the  0,  a Paionian  sign  for  the  sun  (Svoronos, 
ibid.,  pi.  ii,  7)  and  in  another  instance  occupies  the  same  position  on  the  type 
as  a stellar  design,  an  undeniable  sun  symbol  {op.  cit.,  pi.  ii,  5),  that  the 
palmette  had  in  this  locality,  a symbolic  solar  meaning.  This  would  also 
be  appropriate  for  the  Mende  coins  on  which  Dionysiac  solar  types  are 
found,®  and  also  for  the  horse  and  cock  types  of  the  electrum  staters  in 
question,  which  may  also  have  a solar  significance.  However  this  is  mere 
speculation,  for  apart  from  these  coincidences  we  have  no  evidence. 

1 The  B.  M.  C.  Cyprus,  states  that  the  reverse  type  of  Paphos  is  derived  from  that  of  lalysos  in  Rhodes 
(B.  M.  C.  Caria,  pi.  xxxv,  1-5)  which  is  similar.  But  as  the  types  of  lalysos  are  in  no  wise  original  (B.  M.  C. 
Caria,  p.  cl.)  it  would  rather  seem  the  other  way  about.  The  type,  eagle’s  head  with  palmette  in  corner  at 
Cyrene  (Num.  Chron.  1891,  pi.  1-7),  was  imitated  from  the  Cypriote  coins  where  we  know  the  palmette  in 
this  special  form  was  at  home. 

2 Archaic  coins  of  Kyme  in  Aiolis,  B.  M.  C.  Troas,  pi.  xix,  5-7  exhibit  a peculiar  floral  device  in  the 
incuse  which  may  have  its  origin  in  the  palmette-lotus  chain  design  of  Greek  pottery. 

3 Compare  M.  Svoronos’  interesting  theories  regarding  the  cult  by  Apollo-Dionysus-Helios  in  the 
Pangaian  region,  loc.  cit.,  p.  127  f.  and  p.  181  f. 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


9 


THE  GOLD  STATERS 

Plates  I-IV 

SEQUENCE  OF  TYPES 

Only  three  new  types  of  Lampsakene  gold  staters  have  become  known 
in  the  long  interval  since  the  publication  of  the  writer’s  first  paper  on  the 
subject  in  1902.  These  are,  namely,  the  stater  with  the  head  of  a youthful 
Perseus  (?),  PI.  I,  5,  which  is  in  Paris. ^ Another  example  was  seen  in  the 
Pozzi  Collection  some  years  ago,  but  this  did  not  appear  in  the  recent  sale 
of  Dr.  Pozzi’s  coins.  The  second  bears  the  figure  of  a kneeling  archer  in 
Oriental  costume,  PL  I,  9,  was  acquired  in  1895  by  Herr  Arthur  Lobbecke 
of  Braunschweig,  and  has  since  passed  with  his  collection  into  the  Berlin 
Cabinet.  Through  the  courtesy  of  the  late  Dr.  Dressel,  the  writer  was 
permitted  some  years  ago  to  describe  this  beautiful  and  remarkable  new 
type.^  The  third  new  type  is  a stater  bearing  the  head  of  a youthful 
Dionysos  wreathed  with  ivy  leaves  and  berries  (see  below,  fig.  15),  a recent 
acquisition  of  M.  Jameson,  who  most  generously  has  allowed  it  to  be  pub- 
lished here  for  the  first  time.  The  Perseus  head  and  kneeling  archer  staters 
belong  to  the  earliest  group  of  the  coinage,  while  the  youthful  Dionysos 
stater  is  one  of  the  latest  issues. 

In  the  former  paper  on  these  staters,  the  coins  with  figure-types  were 
described  before  those  with  head-types,  since  the  series  admittedly  starts 
with  two  figure-types,  Herakles  strangling  the  serpents  and  Helle  on  the 
ram,  the  reverses  of  which  show  the  winged  half-horse  to  the  left  as  on  the 
Fifth  Century  electrum  staters,  PL  I,  1,  2,  and  because  the  majority  of  the 
figure-types  are  earlier  in  style  than  the  head-types.^ 

No  attempt  was  made,  however,  to  arrange  the  whole  series  with  a 
uniform  reverse  type  in  chronological  order.  In  the  case  of  such  a coinage 
lasting  less  than  a century  (c.  390-330  b.c.  or  as  some  writers  have  thought, 
394-350  B.c.)b  it  seemed  hardly  possible  to  discover  differences  of  style 
sufficiently  marked  to  enable  one  to  determine  the  order  of  the  issues.  But 
in  casting  about  for  a more  satisfactory  arrangement,  an  intensive  study 
of  the  details  of  the  reverses,  and  of  the  sizes  of  flans  and  types,  coupled 
with  the  study  of  the  style  of  the  obverses,  has  furnished  the  clue  to  the 
order  of  the  issues.  It  is  rather  remarkable  that  there  is  only  a single  case 

' First  published  by  Babelon,  Traite  IP,  No.  2547,  pi.  clxxi,  14. 

^ An  Unedited  Gold  Stater  of  Lampsakos,  Zeit.  f.  Num.  xxxii,  p.  1 f,  pi.  i,  1. 

® The  scheme  of  classification  of  the  Lampsakene  gold  staters  was  published  in  1915  in  the  article 
cited  in  Note  2.  This  article  contains  also  the  writer’s  view  of  the  dates  to  be  assigned  to  the  gold  stater 
series.  Much  of  the  argument  that  follows  as  to  the  chronological  succession  of  the  issues,  and  the  date  of 
the  staters  is  matter  repeated  from  that  article,  though  not  in  the  same  form. 

‘ Head,  Hist.  Num.^,  p.  529.  Wroth,  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  p.  xx  f. 


10 


The  American  Journal  op  Numismatics 


where  two  different  obverse  types  have  been  found  to  share  a common 
reverse  die.  This  case  is  the  reverse  die  of  the  Paris  stater  of  the  Herakles 
and  serpent  type  and  the  two  staters  bearing  the  Helle  on  the  ram  type, 
PI.  I,  2,  3,  and  4.  But  it  seems  reasonable  to  hope  that  as  new  specimens 
of  Lampsakene  staters  appear,  more  die  connections  will  be  found  which 
will  then  serve  as  a sure  guide  to  the  order  of  the  issues.  The  chronological 
scheme  here  outlined,  while  perhaps  not  infallible  since  it  is  based  chiefly 
on  the  data  afforded  by  the  details  of  the  reverses,  is  convincing  enough 
when  one  follows  step  by  step  the  evolution  of  the  style  of  the  Pegasos. 
Besides  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  style  of  the  coins,  size  of  their  flans, 
and  size  of  their  types,  there  is  also  that  presented  by  the  two  principal  flnds 
of  Lampsakene  staters  the  Asia  Minor  and  Avola  hoards ; and  the  analysis 
of  these  flnds  entirely  bears  out  the  conclusions  reached  by  the  study  of 
style. 

The  earliest  issues  which  include  both  figure-types  and  head-types  are 
those  coins  which  have  in  general  smaller  size  flans  and  types.  Without 
intending  to  draw  a hard  and  fast  line  between  the  groups,  it  may  be  said 
that  the  coins  on  PL  I,  Nos.  1-21,  all  fall  within  the  earliest  group.  The 
second  group  of  coins  is  characterized  by  a much  more  advanced  type  of 
Pegasos  — the  horse’s  head  is  better  proportioned,  a “ladder”  design  now 
appears  on  the  right  wing  and  also  on  the  left  wing,  or  what  represents  the 
left  wing  in  an  abbreviated  scheme.  The  coins  of  this  second  group  are  in 
general  of  a medium  size  of  flans  and  types  as  compared  with  the  third  and 
last  group.  They  may  be  said  to  extend  down  to  PI.  II,  27.  It  is  difficult 
to  say  just  where  we  consider  the  middle  style  to  end  for  it  merges  so  easily 
into  the  third  style.  However,  the  first  coin  of  the  middle  group,  the  earliest 
of  the  Hermes  head  types  (PI.  I,  22)  is  a connecting  link  between  the  earliest 
and  the  middle  styles,  for  the  “ladder”  pattern  is  not  yet  worked  out  on  the 
wings  of  the  Pegasos  of  this  coin.  The  second  Hermes  type  shows  the 
cross-hatching  on  the  feathered  portions  of  the  wings  which  is  usually  found 
on  all  the  succeeding  coins  and  is  only  omitted  when  the  style  begins  to 
degenerate,  as  it  does  most  markedly  at  the  end  of  the  third  group.  This 
type,  therefore,  is  a satisfactory  starting  point  for  the  middle  group. 

The  middle  group  shows  a Pegasos  whose  head  is  in  better  proportion 
to  the  body  than  on  coins  of  the  earliest  group.  The  style  of  the  obverses 
is  delicate  and  compact  as  on  the  coins  of  the  first  group.  When  we  reach 
the  third  group,  whose  beginning  is  somewhat  hard  to  define  exactly  but 
which  may  be  said  to  start  with  Type  28  of  PI.  II,  we  meet  with  a style  which 
for  breadth  and  nobility  cannot  be  surpassed.  The  Zeus,  Nike,  Aktaion 
and  Hekate  types  are  of  an  incomparable  dignity  and  beauty.  The  reverses 


The  Gold  Staters  op  Lampsakos 


11 


now  reach  the  highest  development  which  is  to  be  seen  in  the  splendid  horses 
of  the  Zeus  and  Nike  issues.  From  this  type  forward,  the  art  of  the  reverses 
begins  to  decline.  The  carefully  evolved,  schematized  treatment  of  the 
wings,  with  fine  cross-hatching  and  "ladder”  pattern,  soon  suffers  at  the 
hands  of  less  conscientious  artisans  than  those  who  were  working  to  perfect 
the  type.  Carelessness  in  the  striking  appears  also  on  the  reverses  (PI. 
Ill,  12,  14,  16-18),  while  the  obverse  designs  are  still  at  the  very  acme  of 
fine  art.  On  the  types  following  the  Zeus  Ammon  (PL  III,  23),  there  is  a 
more  marked  decline  in  the  reverse  style — the  last  issue  (PI.  Ill,  30-35), 
revealing  a quite  inferior  Pegasos  to  that  of  the  first  coins  of  the  whole  series 
of  staters,  which  though  awkward  are  never  negligent  in  style.  The  obverse 
types,  Dionysos,  PL  III,  21  and  Persephone  (?),  PL  III,  30,  are  of  a notice- 
ably rough  style. 

In  spite  of  the  lack  of  die  connections  for  the  reverses  of  different 
obverse  types,  there  can  be  no  uncertainty  about  the  order  of  the  types  on 
general  lines,  for  there  does  exist  such  close  similarity  between  the  reverse 
dies  of  certain  different  obverses  as  to  couple  these  issues  as  infallibly  as 
identical  dies  would.  For  example,  the  Apollo  head  of  PL  I,  27,  has  a reverse 
die  which  resembles  that  of  PL  I,  26,  so  closely  that  it  is  hard  at  first  sight 
to  distinguish  the  two  dies.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  reverses  of  PL  I, 
9 and  10,  in  which  the  treatment  of  the  details  is  in  all  respects  alike. 
The  reverse  of  PL  I,  15,  is  like  these  two  in  the  still  rather  large  head  and 
the  treatment  of  the  wings  of  the  Pegasos,  but  it  shows  an  advance  over  all 
of  the  preceding  reverses  in  the  treatment  of  the  far  wing  of  the  horse,  which 
now  begins  to  appear  as  though  separate  from  the  body.  The  inner  curve 
on  the  far  wing  which  gives  this  effect  of  separation  is  seen  from  now  on 
almost  without  exception.  The  reverses  of  PL  I,  16  and  17,  are  too  much 
alike  to  admit  of  any  hesitation  as  to  their  being  consecutive  or  closely 
consecutive  issues.  The  reverses  of  the  Herakles  and  Demeter  types,  PL  I, 
29  and  30,  are  almost  but  not  quite  identical,  and  are  different  from  all 
other  reverses  in  the  rendering  of  the  fore-legs.  Then  again  there  is  a very 
noticeable  similarity  in  style  on  the  obverses  of  the  coins  which  we  have 
grouped  together.  The  Maenad  head  of  the  early  group,  that  specimen 
which  is  the  most  advanced  in  style,  PL  I,  20,  has  a close  affinity  of  style 
with  the  Hermes  and  Apollo  heads,  PL  I,  26  and  27.  The  Hera,  Zeus  and 
Nike  heads,  PL  II,  30  and  31,  and  PL  III,  10,  the  Aktaion  and  Hekate  heads, 
PL  HI,  18  and  19,  might  be  by  the  same  artists. 

Here  and  there  one  finds  deviations  from  the  usual  reverse  style.  The 
Pegasos  wing  is  treated  quite  independently  in  the  second  Dionysos-head 
type,  PL  II,  18,  19;  it  follows  no  tradition,  and  the  Pegasos  itself  is  unusually 


12 


The  American  Journal  oe  Numismatics 


large.  The  head  of  Dionysos,  however,  is  small,  and  the  type  agrees  very 
well  in  style  with  the  satrapal  head  of  the  coins  preceding  it  on  the  plate. 
This  is  a case  where  we  might  suppose  that  missing  links  would  supply  a 
set  of  dies  that  would  couple  up  and  give  a more  consecutive  development. 
Yet  reverses  of  individual  style  are  found  now  and  again  throughout  the 
whole  series.  An  example  is  PL  II,  28,  where  the  horse’s  head  is  larger 
than  usual  in  proportion  — the  wings  also.  Another  instance  is  the  coin 
with  the  “archaic”  Athena  head,  PL  III,  29;  its  reverse  has  no  parallel 
on  the  coinage.  The  head  which  is  directly  copied  from  the  coinage  of 
Athens,  in  profile  to  left,  however,  is  quite  akin  to  the  issues  of  338-329  b.c. 
This  would  fall  at  the  very  close  of  the  Lampsakene  issues  according  to  our 
dating,  and  the  reverse  may  consequently  be  accounted  for  in  the  same  way 
as  those  here  classed  as  the  latest  issue,  PL  III,  30,  showing  a complete 
breaking  away  from  the  traditional  scheme  of  the  wings,  of  which  signs 
are  already  manifested  in  some  of  the  preceding  types. 

After  the  Nike  type  of  PL  III,  2,  the  Pegasos  is  never  treated  in  the 
fine  and  carefully  perfected  style  characteristic  of  the  whole  of  the  middle 
and  of  the  first  examples  of  the  third  group.  There  is  just  one  coin,  Pan- 
head, PL  I,  21,  which  by  reason  of  its  small  flan  and  the. smaller  size  of  its 
obverse  and  reverse  types,  may  perhaps  belong  somewhat  earlier  than  it 
has  been  placed.  It  might  precede  the  facing  Satyr  head,  PL  I,  2,  though 
it  could  hardly  come  earlier.  Note  the  way  in  which  on  the  earliest  types, 
the  feathered  end  of  the  near  wing  curls  over  toward  the  horse’s  head. 

The  following  reverses  selected  from  the  three  groups  into  which  the 
staters  fall,  are  representative  of  the  evolution  in  style  which  gives  the  key 
to  the  chronological  order  of  the  issues.  This  evolution  is  exactly  parallel 
to  the  stylistic  development  of  the  wing  of  the  Sphinx  in  the  transitional  and 
later  Fifth  Century  coins  of  Chios. 


Fig.  5 


Fig.  5,  Helle  on  the  ram  (PL  I,  3),  exhibits  a Pegasos  of  semi-archaic 
style.  The  reverse  die  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Herakles  and  serpents  type 
(PL  I,  2),  and  these  are  the  earliest  reverse  dies,  as  the  direction  of  the  horse 
to  the  left  and  the  kinship  with  the  electrum  staters  indicate  (type  with  I, 
Electriim  Coinage,  PL  I,  12a  f.).  By  this  we  mean  that  the  more  natural- 
istic feathered  form  of  the  wing  found  on  the  archaic  electrum  staters  is 
still  retained. 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


13 


Fig.  6 Fig.  7 


Figs.  6 and  7,  kneeling  archer  and  Nike  sacrificing  a ram  (PI.  I,  9 and 
10),  of  strikingly  similar  style,  exhibit  some  advance  over  the  earlier  types, 
but  the  wing  behind  the  horse  is  not  yet  separated  from  the  truncation  of 
the  body,  and  the  feathered  portions  of  the  wings  are  still  more  or  less 
naturalistic,  as  on  the  archaic  electrum  coins.  The  reverse  type  is  now 
turned  to  the  right,  and  this  direction  remains  unchanged  in  all  the  suc- 
ceeding gold  issues,  as  well  as  on  all  other  silver  and  bronze  issues  struck 
hereafter. 


Fig.  8 Fig.  9 


Fig.  8,  Maenad  head  (PI.  I,  19)  shows  the  beginning  of  the  separation 
of  the  far  wing  from  the  body  of  the  horse  and  the  feathered  parts  of  the 
wings  conventionally  schematized. 

Fig.  9,  Hermes’  head  (PI.  I,  25)  marks  the  complete  development  of 
the  schematic  treatment  of  the  wings,  a sort  of  “ladder”  pattern  running 
down  the  middle  of  the  right  wing  and  finishing  off  the  inside  of  the  left 
wing,  and  fine  cross-hatching  appearing  on  the  feathered  portions  of  both 
wings. 

Fig.  11 

Fig.  10,  Zeus  head  (PI.  II,  22)  shows  the  same  details  of  treatment  and 
a larger  size  of  type  and  flan. 

Fig.  11,  Zeus  with  sceptre  (PI.  Ill,  2)  of  still  larger  size  of  type  and 
flan,  exhibits  the  highest  development  of  style  in  a finely  proportioned 
vigorous  Pegasos,  of  which  several  different  dies  exist. 

The  wing  of  the  Sphinx  on  the  coins  of  Chios  shows  a similar  evolution 
from  the  archaic  style,  which  also  prevails  through  the  transitional  period, 
although  this  “modernization”  is  effected  suddenly  (in  the  tetradrachms  of 
c.  440-420  B.c.)  and  not  by  degrees  as  in  the  Lampsakene  coins. 


Fig.  10 


14 


The  American  Journal  oe  Numismatics 


Fig.  12  Fig.  13  Fig.  14 


Fig.  12,  Aktaion  head  (PI.  Ill,  14),  Fig.  13,  Kabeiros  head  (PL  III,  26), 
and  Fig.  14,  Aphrodite '(?)  head  (PL  III,  33),  illustrate  the  gradual  decline 
in  style  which  is  most  evident  in  the  carelessly  done  reverse  of  the  Kabeiros 
head  — a beautiful  type,  and  the  sadly  inferior  style  of  the  Aphrodite  (?) 
staters. 

Enough  has  been  said  in  justification  of  our  arrangement  of  the  staters 
from  the  standpoint  of  style.  It  was  mentioned  earlier  that  the  evidence 
of  two  hoards  containing  Lampsakene  staters  confirmed  our  arrangement. 
Sometime  ago,  Sixb  taking  the  style  of  the  reverses  as  a guide,  had  arranged 
the  twenty  types  known  to  him  in  a chronological  order  which  in  many 
points  corresponds  with  our  own.  Mr.  Hill,  of  the  British  Museum,  was 
once  kind  enough  to  give  the  writer  a letter  written  to  the  late  Mr.  Wroth 
by  Six,  dated  Amsterdam,  May  18,  1892,  in  which  the  distinguished  numis- 
matist, to  whom  our  science  is  indebted  for  so  many  of  its  most  original  and 
learned  contributions,®  outlined  his  idea  of  the  grouping  of  the  Lampsakene 
staters  into  two'  groups,  according  to  the  two  finds.  Lobbecke^  also,  and 
Greenwell,^  in  publishing  these  finds  which  were  made  about  1888  at  Avola, 
near  Syracuse,  and  in  Asia  Minor,  probably  in  the  Troad,  made  very  just 
observations  upon  the  differences  of  style  shown  by  the  coins  in  the  finds. 
Of  the  latter  hoard,  Lobbecke  wrote  that  all  of  the  staters  appeared  to  be 
later  than  those  of  the  Avola  hoard,  the  flan  of  the  former  being  larger  and 
flatter,  and  the  incuse  square  almost  disappearing  — the  workmanship  in 
certain  staters  showing  already  that  a decline  in  style  had  set  in.  Greenwell 
wrote  of  the  facing  Satyr  head  which  came  from  the  Avola  find,  “This  fine 
stater  of  Lampsacus,  of  an  earlier  issue  than  some  of  those  presently  to  be 
noticed,®  formed  part  of  a hoard  lately  found  in  Sicily.”  And,  again,  in 
discussing  the  Asia  Minor  find,  he  wrote,  “Two  of  them  appear  to  belong 
to  the  later  issue  of  gold  staters  of  Lampsacus,  and  probably  do  not  date 
from  a time  earlier  than  that  of  Philip  II  of  Macedon.” 

1 Num.  Chron.  1888,  p.  111. 

^ It  was  Six  who  first  called  attention  to  the  Boiotian  inscription  of  the  middle  of  the  Fourth  Century 
B.C.,  which  mentions  gold  staters  of  Lampsakos  (Electrum  Coinage,  p.  10),  as  this  letter  proves. 

’ Zeit.  f.  Num.  1890,  p.  179. 

* Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  25. 

s Namely,  those  from  the  Asia  Minor  hoard. 


The  Gold  Statees  of  Lampsakos 


15 


The  Avola  find^  contained  seven  different  types  as  follows^ ; a figure- 
type,  Apollo  seated  (PL  I,  6),  and  the  head-types,  Satyr  facing  (PI.  II,  2), 
Demeter  r.  (PI.  I,  15),  Hermes  1.  (PI.  I,  22),  Herakles  1.  (PI.  I,  29),  Athena  1. 
(PI.  II,  8)  and  Maenad  1.  with  sakkos  (PI.  II,  12).  The  Asia  Minor  find® 
contained  these  seven  types : Athena  1.  (PI.  II,  6),  Maenad  head  with  sakkos 
(PI.  II,  10),  Zeus  with  sceptre  (PI.  Ill,  2),  Aktaion  1.  (PI.  Ill,  14),  Hekate  1. 
(PL  III,  19),  Kabeiros  1.  (Pi.  Ill,  25  or  27)  and  Aphrodite  1.  (PL  III,  35). 

The  contents  of  these  two  hoards  correspond  roughly  with  the  pro- 
nouncedly earlier  and  later  styles  noticeable  in  the  coinage  as  may  be 
rather  easily  discerned  at  first  view,  for  the  Avola  hoard  had  none  of  the 
staters  which  are  of  the  later  style,  while  the  Asia  Minor  hoard  contained 
none  of  the  earlier  staters.  The  most  important  point  for  argument  is 
that  the  two  staters  common  to  both  hoards,  the  Athena  and  Maenad  with 
sakkos  types,  belong  to  our  middle  group,  so  that,  granted  the  early  and 
late  character  of  the  two  hoards  respectively,  it  is  most  natural  to  find  that 
the  types  of  an  intermediate  group  are  common  to  both  hoards. 

If,  therefore,  we  can  date  the  Athena  and  Maenad  types  which  seem  to 
have  been  consecutive  issues  from  their  reverses,  and  according  to  style  are 
the  latest  staters  in  the  Avola  hoard,  we  should  give  the  date  of  these  staters 
as  the  probable  date  of  deposit.  Now  the  find  was  reported  as  containing 
besides  the  Lampsakene  staters,  one  hundred  and  fifty  silver  Pegasi  of 
Corinth  and  her  colonies,  fourteen  hundred-litra  gold  pieces  of  Syracuse, 
one  gold  stater  of  Abydos,  and  four  Persian  darics.  Lobbecke  assumed, 
quite  logically  enough  from  his  information,  that  the  date  of  deposit  was 
c.  320  B.C.,  the  limit  furnished  by  the  silver  coins.  We  have  it,  however, 
on  the  suggestion  of  Sir  Arthur  Evans,^  that  the  Avola  find  was  in  reality 
a composite  one,  made  up  of  two  separate  finds  which  had  been  unearthed 
in  Sicily  at  about  this  same  time.  If  the  hoard  was  really  made  up  of  two 
separate  finds  — one  composed  of  gold  and  one  of  silver  coins,  then  the 
period  represented  by  the  coins  in  the  gold  hoard  would  extend  from  about 

1 Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  25;  Zeit.  f.  Num.  1890,  p.  169  f. 

^ There  were  fourteen  staters  in  the  hoard  but  five  of  the  coins  were  not  seen  by  Lobbecke  and  two 
were  duplicates  of  the  seven  above  enumerated. 

* Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  26  f.;  Zeit.  f.  Num.,  1890,  p.  178. 

^ Num.  Chron.  1891,  p.  297,  note  22.  “According  to  my  own  information  more  than  one  find  has 
been  discovered  in  the  same  Sicilian  district  within  the  last  few  years,  and  I have  myself  seen  specimens  of 
two  hoards  of  very  different  composition,  one  apparently  dating  from  the  early  part  of  the  Fourth  Century 
and  the  other  from  the  beginning  of  the  Third.  The  coins  described  by  Herr  Lobbecke  seem  to  me  to 
belong  to  two  distinct  hoards,  one  of  early  gold  coins  including  besides  the  Syracusan,  staters  of  Lampsakos 
and  Abydos  and  a Persian  daric;  the  other  of  the  late  silver  coins,  Pegasi,  etc.” 

Dr.  P.  Orsi,  in  the  latest  account  of  this  hoard,  Atti  e Mem.,  1917,  p.  7,  note  1,  states  that  the 
gold  coins  were  contained  in  one  clay  vase,  the  silver  in  another,  according  to  report,  but  agrees  with  Evans 
that  this  report  may  have  been  incorrect  and  that  there  were  probably  two  separate  and  distinct  finds. 


16 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


413  B.C.,  the  date  of  the  Syracusan  gold  coins,  to  whatever  date  we  should 
assign  to  the  Athena  and  Maenad  heads,  the  latest  staters  in  the  hoard 
according  to  the  criteria  of  style. 

It  so  happens  that  these  two  types  are  very  closely  allied  by  their 
reverses  to  the  staters  bearing  a head  of  a Persian  satrap  (PL  II,  15-17). 
This  type  follows  in  our  scheme  next  but  one^  upon  the  aforesaid  types. 
The  Persian  satrap  type  appears  in  three  examples,  all  very  rare  and  inter- 
esting coins.  The  specimen,  PL  II,  15,  from  the  Hunterian  collection  in 
Glasgow,  was  long  the  only  example  known.  Later  on,  the  Paris  cabinet 
acquired  the  stater,  PL  II,  16;  and  M.  Jameson  has  the  third  specimen, 
PL  II,  17.  The  Glasgow  coin  does  not  give  any  suggestion  of  being  more 
than  a typical  head  of  a satrap,  but  the  two  newer  examples  show  most 
decidedly  that  portraiture  is  here  intended,  for  there  is  more  expression  in 
both  these  heads.  This  portrait  can  hardly  be  that  of  anyone  else  than 
Orontas,  who  was  satrap  of  Mysia  and  Ionia,  c.  362-345  b.c.^  Orontas 
struck  silver  coins  at  Lampsakos  bearing  a head  of  Athena  helmeted  to  the  left, 
not  dissimilar  in  style  to  the  Athena  head  on  the  gold  staters,  and  having  on 
the  reverse  the  Lampsakene  arms,  a fore-part  of  Pegasos  and  his  name 
OPONTA.® 

The  occasion  of  the  issue  of  these  satrapal  coins  at  Lampsakos  is 
undoubtedly  as  Six  first  pointed  out,  and  Babelon  has  further  developed, 
the  revolt  of  the  satraps  against  Artaxerxes  II  Mnemon,  c.  362  b.c.  If 
Orontas  issued  the  staters  of  Lampsakos  with  the  portrait  of  himself  on  the 
occasion  of  the  revolt  against  the  Persian  King,  c.  362  b.c.,  then  the  staters 
with  Athena  and  Maenad  heads  were  issued  just  before  this  date,  provided 
our  sequence  of  types  be  correct. 

A consideration  of  the  style  of  the  coins  which  belong  to  our  third 
group  will  perhaps  serve  to  strengthen  this  conclusion.  Here  we  are  wholly 
on  that  rather  unstable  and  shifting  basis  of  style.  The  third  group  of 
staters  begins,  according  to  our  arrangement,  almost  immediately  with  the 
Hera  and  Zeus  staters  (PL  II,  30  f.)  which  represent  the  highest  attainment 
of  art  on  Lampsakene  staters.  The  Zeus  head,  particularly  that  which 
was  clearly  the  earliest  die,  PL  II,  31-35,  is  one  of  the  most  perfect  creations 

1 A facing  helmeted  head  of  Athena,  PI.  II,  14,  intervenes. 

2 Babelon,  Traite  IP,  p.  105  f,  explains  the  gold  issue  as  insurrectional,  and  thus  accounts  for  the  lack 
of  any  royal  inscription  or  type.  The  head  has  been  ascribed  to  Tissaphernes  and  Pharnabazos  by  Head, 
but  in  the  Hist.  Num.^,  p.  597,  this  eminent  authority  agrees  with  Babelon ’s  assignment  to  Orontas.  The 
former  satraps  come  too  early  in  the  Fourth  Century  for  this  Lampsakene  stater  which,  according  to  our 
classification,  was  struck  c.  360  b.c.,  and  Spithridates,  a third  possibility  inasmuch  as  we  have  his  satrapal 
coins  from  our  mint,  comes  too  late,  since  his  coins  were  probably  struck  under  the  authority  of  Darius  III 
Codomannus  when^the  latter  was  preparing  to  resist  the  invasion  of  Alexander. 

® Babelon,  Traite  IP,  pi.  Ixxxviii,  15. 


The  Gold  Statees  of  Lampsakos 


17 


of  the  die-sinker,  a majestic  yet  genial  type  of  Zeus  head.  The  later  dies 
(PL  III,  3-7),  excellent  as  they  seem  by  themselves,  are  much  harder  and 
more  expressionless  than  the  first  die,  this  being  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
type  first  created  was  merely  copied  over  and  over  again.  The  heads  of 
Nike,  of  Herakles  as  Omphale,  of  Aktaion  and  Hekate  are  all  on  the  highest 
plane  of  excellence.  These  types  are  the  culmination  of  the  art  of  the 
series  and,  given  the  number  of  types  which  precede  these  staters  and  the 
admitted  beginning  of  the  coinage,  c.  390  b.c.,  the  date  c.  350  b.c.  would 
seem  to  suit  the  style  of  these  staters  and  to  harmonize  with  the  inferences 
we  have  drawn  from  the  study  of  the  reverses.  But,  of  course,  the  only 
soundly  based  date  is  that  which  we  can  infer  from  the  stater  which,  as 
seems  likely,  bears  the  portrait  head  of  Orontas.  Then,  if  our  order  of 
issues  is  correct,  the  latest  coins  of  the  Avola  hoard  were  struck  just  previous 
to  362  B.C.,  which  furnishes  us  with  an  approximate  date  for  the  burial  of 
this  hoard. 

The  date  of  deposit  of  the  Asia  Minor  hoard  will  depend  upon  the  date 
which  is  chosen  for  the  end  of  the  Lampsakene  issues  since  it  contained 
examples  of  staters,  which,  according  to  our  arrangement,  are  the  latest  of 
the  series.  The  date  given  in  the  British  Museum  Catalogue  for  the  lower 
limit  of  the  stater  coinage  is  “c.  350  b.c.”  This  date  according  to  the 
foregoing  hypotheses  would  be  much  too  early.  Six  and  Babelon  have 
supposed  that  the  stater  coinage  of  Lampsakos  was  not  immediately  ended 
by  the  appearance  of  Philip’s  staters,  c.  359-336  b.c.,  but  only  when  Alex- 
ander’s staters  had  begun  to  flood  the  markets  of  Asia  Minor.  This  view 
seems  in  itself  more  probable,  and,  it  should  be  noted,  is  that  accepted  also 
for  the  period  of  cessation  of  the  issues  of  electrum  at  Kyzikos.^  Further- 
more, there  are  two  staters  in  the  third  group  which  ex  hypothesi  would 
be  subsequent  to  c.  350  b.c.,  which  bear  types  quite  possibly  referring  to 
Alexander  the  Great.  These  are,  namely,  the  stater  with  a youthful  male 
head  without  attributes,  PI.  IV,  22,  and  the  Zeus  Ammon  head,  PL  III,  23, 
both  unique  coins  in  the  Paris  cabinet.  The  former  has  been  called  an 
Achilles  head,  but  this  is  obviously  a mere  guess.  The  head  is  the  only 
male  head  in  the  series  which  has  no  defining  attribute  to  enable  us  to 
describe  it  as  that  of  some  deity.  There  is  also  a female  head  without 
attributes  in  the  series  which  has  been  called  that  of  the  eponomous  heroine 
of  Lampsakos,  who  was  called  Lampsake.  This  is  far  from  being  an  improb- 
able suggestion  since  the  local  nymph  is  one  of  the  commonest  of  all  the 
Greek  coin  types.  For  the  male  head  without  attributes,  we  are  at  a loss 
for  a name.  It  can  scarcely  be  a personification  like  that  of  the  founder, 

* Cf.  Die  Elektron  Pragung  von  Kyzikos  by  H.  v.  Fritze  in  Nomisma  VII. 


18 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


for  in  this  case  the  reputed  founder  was  a woman,  and  her  grave  was  even 
shown  at  Lampsakos  in  Plutarch’s  day.  Six  once  suggested  that  this  head 
represented  Alexander  the  Great.  He  considered  that  the  Zeus  Ammon 
type  and  the  Maenad  head  with  the  flying  hair,  PL  I,  32f.,  represented 
Alexander’s  reputed  father  whom  he  claimed  as  divine  ancestor,  and  his 
mother,  Olympias,  about  whose  participation  in  the  orgiastic  rites  of  the 
Bacchic  cult  many  stories  were  told.  The  interpretation  of  the  Maenad 
head  as  that  of  Olympias  may  easily  be  dismissed  as  over-fanciful.  Besides 
it  is  one  of  the  early  staters,  not  one  of  the  later  style.  But  it  may  be  con- 
ceded that  the  reverse  of  the  young  male  head  without  attributes,  otherwise 
nameless,  has  a somewhat  Alexandrine  character;  that  its  reverse  type  is 
of  the  same  style  as  that  of  the  Zeus  Ammon  stater,  and  that  both  belong  to 
a period  which  we  should  regard  as  towards  the  end  of  the  series.  All  this 
being  so,  there  is  some  reason  for  thinking  that  the  two  types  may  refer  to 
Alexander,  the  former  being  a sort  of  disguised  portrait.  These  types  may, 
as  Six  ingeniously  imagined,  have  been  chosen  by  the  city  to  show  its  grati- 
tude to  Alexander  for  his  forebearance  in  sparing  the  inhabitants  in  his 
victorious  march  into  Asia  Minor  in  334  b.c.^  If  then  these  are  types 
connected  with  Alexander  and  only  three  more  types  subsequent  to  these 
are  known,  we  may  assume  that  the  coinage  lasted  down  to  c.  330  b.c. 
This  dating  harmonizes  with  the  supposition  that  Orontas  struck  the 
satrapal  portrait  stater,  and  perhaps  also  the  Athena  head,  PL  II,  5-8,  for 
this  type  would  then  fall  into  the  exact  middle  of  the  period  c.  390-330  b.c., 
and  its  style  quite  suits  such  a date. 

The  discussion  of  the  date  of  the  beginning  of  the  coinage  will  be  taken 
up  in  connection  with  the  discussion  of  the  first  type,  Herakles  and  the 
serpent  — the  type  which  gives  us  the  data  for  determining  when  the 
coinage  began. 

A valuable  test  of  the  order  of  the  Lampsakene  issues  as  here  proposed, 
is  afforded  by  the  opportunity  to  place  an  unpublished  type  in  the  series 
and  to  see  whether  the  style  of  the  reverse  and  the  other  criteria,  style  of 
obverse,  size  of  type  and  flan,  height  of  relief,  are  in  accord.  The  Jameson 
stater,  No.  38,  fig.  15  (see  Cat.  of  Types),  a youthful  Dionysos  type, 
is  very  easily  recognized  as  one  of  the  latest  issues  from  the  style  of  both 
obverse  and  reverse.  The  Pegasos  is  done  in  the  negligent  style  of  the 
close  of  the  series  — a style  which,  at  first  glance,  is  suggestive  of  the 
earliest  issues  in  the  treatment  of  the  wings,  but  which  is  soon  seen  to  be 
not  the  early  imperfect  style  but  the  debased  style  which  followed  the  high 
perfection  of  the  coins  of  the  middle  and  third  group.  This  negligent  style 

‘ Droysen,  Hist,  de  rHeU6nisme,  I,  p.  189. 


The  Golb  Statees  op  Lampsakos 


19 


of  Pegasos  is  found  in  the  staters,  PL  III,  12  f,  and  the  closest  approxi- 
mation to  our  stater  is  the  reverse  of  PL  III,  23,  the  Zeus  Ammon  type. 
This  position  in  the  series  is  entirely  in  harmony  with  the  larger  size  of 
the  obverse  type  and  flan,  and  the  broader  style  of  the  head.  The  sum- 
mary treatment  of  the  hair,  the  large  size  of  the  ivy  leaves  are  on  a par  with 
these  features  of  the  bearded  Dionysos  head,  PI.  Ill,  21.  While  the  stater 
lacks  the  delicacy  of  the  early  Maenad  heads,  PL  I,  19,  20,  and  of  the 
female  Satyr,  PL  III,  13,  it  is  dignified  and  noble  in  expression,  and  like  all 
of  the  Lampsakene  types  with  the  exception  of  the  head  copied  from  Athe- 
nian coinage  PL  III,  29,  it  has  beauty  and  originality  of  style. 

CATALOGUE  OF  TYPES 

1 Infant  HeraHes,  nude,  kneeling  to  r,,  strangling  a serpent  with  each  hand,  r. 
arm  raised,  1.  lowered  ; crepundia  over  1.  shoulder  and  under  r.  arm  ; ground  line. 

I?/  Forepart  of  a winged  horse  to  L,  rounded  wings,  feathered,  1.  raised,  r.  low- 
ered ; I.  wing  in  three  sections,  the  one  joining  the  body  plain,  middle  one  dotted,  outer 
one  feathered ; row  of  dots  at  termination  of  horse’s  body. 

а.  18  X 14mm.  8.44  gr.  Boston  (Green well- Warren) ; I-a.^  Plate  I,  1 

Cat.  Ivanoff,  Eo.  192  (S.  W.  & H.,  June,  1863);  Brandis,  Miinz.-Mass.  u.  Gewichtswesen,  p. 

409;  Greenwell,  Eum.  Chron.  1880,  p.  12,  pi.  i,  11;  Gardner,  Types  of  Greek  Coins,  p.  33,  pi.  xvi, 
8;  Kegling,  Sammlung  Warren,  Eo.  1002,  pi.  xxiii ; Gardner,  Gold  Coinage  of  Asia,  in  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  British  Academy,  III,  1908,  pi.  ii,  9;  Jour.  Inter,  -de  Eum.  (hereinafter  abbre- 
viated to  J.  I.  E.)  1902,  la,  pi.  i,  1. 

б.  16mm.  8.43  gr.  (pierced).  Paris  (Old  Collection);  II-A  Plate  I,  2 

Pellerin,  Eecueil,  II,  p.  51,  pi.  xlix,  22;  Sestini,  Lettere  e Dissertazioni  (Livorno,  1779)  IV, 
p.  70,  pi.  V,  2;  Eckhel,  Doctrina  Eum.  Vet.  II,  p.  456;  Mioanet,  Cat.  d’Empreintes,  p.  42,  Eo.  827, 
and  Descr.  de  Mdd.  II,  p.  559,  No.  284;  Sestini,  Stateri  Antichi,  p.  64,  Eo.  13,  pi.  vi,  10;  Wadd- 

ington,  Kev.  Eum.  1863,  pi.  x,  5;  Brandis,  op.  cit.,  p.  409;  Babelon,  Traitd  IP,  Eo.  2529,  pi. 
clxx,  28;  J.  I.  E.  1902,  Eo.  Ib,  pi.  i,  2. 

a and  b,  different  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 

2 Helle,  wearing  chiton  and  himation,  seated  sidewise  on  a ram  which  advances 
to  1.  with  raised  fore-legs. 

B7  Similar. 

a?  16mm.  8.41  gr.  Berlin  ( Prokesch-Osten)  ; I-a.  Plate  I,  3 

Prokesch-Osten , Arch.  Zeitung,  1849  (Denk.  u.  Forsch.  Eo.  10,  p.  97),  pi.  x,  2;  Gerhard, 
ibid. , 1853  (D.  u.  F.  Eo.  58,  p.  116),  pi.  iviii,  9;  Prok.-O.,  Inedita  meiner  Sammlung,  1854,  Eo. 
282,  p.  60,  pi.  iv,  8;  Brandis,  op.  cit.,  p.  410;  Zeit.  f.  Eum.  1877,  p.  6;  J.  I.  E.  1902,  2a,  pi.  i,  3. 

1 The  Roman  and  Greek  numerals  following  the  weight  and  present  location  of  each  coin  in- 
dicate the  obverse  and  reverse  dies  in  serial  numbering  for  each  type,  and  their  combinations. 

2 Example  a was  purchased  in  1848  at  Livadhia  (Lebedeia,  Boiotia),  by  Prokesch-Osten  who 
describes  another  specimen  (Arch.  Zeit.  1849,  p.  97)  of  the  same  W'eigbt  but  less  well  preserved, 
which  he  bought  in  Orchomenos  and  ceded  to  H.  P.  Borrell,  in  Smyrna.  This  second  specimen 
is  doubtless  the  de  Luynes  coin,  h. 


20 


The  American  Journal  oe  Numismatics 


h.  16mm.  8.44  gr.  Paris  (de  Luynes);  Il-a.  Plate  I,  4 

Brandis,  op.  cit.,  p.  410;  Babelon,  Traits  IP,  No.  2530,  pi.  clxx,  29;  Cat.  Borrell,  No.  134 
(S.  «&  W.,  London,  1852);  J.  I.  N.  1902,  2b,  pi.  i,  4. 

a and  b,  different  obverse  dies  but  same  reverse  die.  Reverse  die  of  Type  2 iden- 
tical with  that  of  Type  1 b,  the  only  case  in  the  whole  series  where  the  same  reverse 
die  is  combined  with  two  different  obverse  dies. 

3 Young  male  head,  Perseus  (?),  helmeted  1.,  hair  falls  in  loose  locks;  visor  of 
helmet  ends  in  a volute  ornament ; above  volute  is  a small  wing ; below  the  wing,  a 
volute. 

B?  Similar,  horse  to  r.,  r.  wing  raised,  1.  lowered ; middle  section  of  r.  wing 
widens  out  from  a row  of  dots  to  an  even  row  of  feathers. 

a.  16mm.  8.40  gr.  Paris;  unique.^  Plate  I,  5 

Babelon,  Traitd  II^,  No.  2547,  pi.  clxxi,  14.  (“  tete  imberbe  d’Atys  ”). 

4 Orpheus,  wearing  “ Phrygian  ” cap,  with  flaps  at  back  and  side,  talaric  chiton 
girdled  at  waist,  and  himation  thrown  back  from  shoulders,  seated  to  r.  on  rock ; rests 
r.  elbow  on  knee  and  supports  chin  with  r.  hand ; on  1.  knee  supports  lyre  from  which 
hangs  a strap  ; ground  line. 

B?  Similar,  no  row  of  dots  at  termination  of  horse’s  body. 

a.  16mm.  8.40  gr.  Berlin  (Lobbecke)  ; \-a.  Plate  I,  6 

From  the  Avola  Find.  Lobbecke,  Zeit.  f.  Num.  1890,  p.  170,  No.  9,  pi.  vi  (x),  9;  J I.  N. 

1902,  4b,  pi.  i,  7. 

b.  16mm.  8.43  gr.  Paris  (Waddington)  ; II-/3.  Plate  I,  7. 

Babelon,  Rev.  Num.  1897,  p.  319,  No.  868,  pi.  vii,  12  = Inv.  Wadd.  pi.  ii,  12,  and  Traitd 

II2,  No.  2532,  pi.  clxx,  31;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  4a,  pi.  i,  6. 

a and  b,  different  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 

5 Thetis  or  a Nereid,  semi-nude,  limbs  draped,  hair  long,  seated  to  1.  on  dolphin 
to  r.,  holding  in  r.  hand  knemides,  and  on  1.  arm,  a shield  (arms  of  Achilles  ?). 

B7  Similar. 

a.  16mm.  8.41  gr.  Paris  (Old  Coll.) ; unique.  Plate  I,  8 

Mionnet,  Cat  d’Empreintes,  p.  42,  No.  825;  Sestini,  Lett,  e Diss.  (Berlin,  1805),  VII,  p.  36, 
pi.  iii,  6,  and  Stateri  Antichi,  p.  65,  No.  16,  pi.  vi,  13;  Mionnet,  Descr.  de  M^d.  II,  p.  559,  No. 
285;  Brandis,  op.  cit.,  p.  410;  Babelon,  Traits  IP,  No.  2531,  pi.  clxx,  30;  Imhoof-Blumer,  J.  I. 
N.  1908,  p.  134,  pi.  viii,  44;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  3a,  pi.  i,  5. 

6 An  archer  kneeling  to  r.  on  r.  knee,  1.  elbow  resting  on  1.  knee,  holding  in  1. 
hand  an  upright  bow,  together  with  an  arrow ; his  r.  arm  drawn  back  from  the  body 
hangs  down  with  open  palm ; he  wears  a cap  with  loose  flaps  bound  with  a ribbon  of 
which  the  ends  are  tied  in  a bow-knot ; a long-sleeved  chiton  girdled  at  the  waist ; 
anaxyrides,  and  shoes  turned  up  at  the  toe ; over  the  chiton,  he  wears  a close-fitting 
jacket  of  some  padded  material  or  leather,  laced  down  the  front,  with  short  caps  over 
the  arms  ; ground  line. 

B^  Similar. 

> Another  example  was  once  in  the  Pozzi  Collection,  but  it  was  possibly  not  genuine.  It 
does  not  appear  in  the  Pozzi  Sale  Catalogue,  1920. 


The  Gold  Statees  of  Lampsakos 


21 


a.  16mm.  8.42  gr.  Berlin,  (Lobbecke) ; unique.  . Plate  I,  9 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  p.  8,  and  Zeit.  f.  E'um.  xxxii,  pp.  1-14,  pL  i,  1. 

7 Nike,  winged,  semi-nude,  witb  drapery  about  the  legs,  kneels  1.  on  a ram  seated 
to  1. ; with  her  L hand  she  seizes  1.  horn  of  ram,  and.  holds  back  its  head,  while  in  her 
r.  hand,  she  holds  a knife  pointed  at  the  ram’s  throat. 

157  Similar. 

a.  16mm.  8.42  gr.  London  (formerly  Sir  H.  Weber);  unique.  Plate  I,  10 

G-reenwell,  Num.  Chron.  1886,  p.  10,  pi.  i,  9;  Babelon,. Trait4  IF,  No.  25M,  pi.  clxx,  3.3; 
Head,  Hist.  Num.  p.  629,  fig.  276;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  6a,  pL  i,  9. 

The  example  in  Cat.  Monn.  gr.  ant.,  No.  509,  pi.  xi  (Rollin  et  Feuardent,  Paris, 
May,  1910),  weighing  only  8.40  gr.,  was  a forgery  and  withdrawn  from  the  sale. 

8 Head  of  a Satyr,  facing,  slightly  to  L,  with  straight  hair  brushed  back  from 
the  forehead,  and  flowing  beard  cropped  short  between  the  long  drooping  moustache, 
and  with  pointed  animai’s  ears. 

Similar. 

a.  16mm.  8.41  gr.  Berlin  (Lobbecke) ; I-a.  Plate  I,  11 

From  the  Avola  Find.  Lobbecke,  Zeit.  f.  Nom.  1890,  p.  169,  No.  3,  pi.  vi  (x),  3;  J.  I.  N. 

1902,  32b,  pi.  iii,  16. 

b.  15mm.  8.43  gr.  Paris  (Waddington)  ; I-S.  Plate  I,  12 

Babelon,  Kev.  Num.  1897,  p.  318,  No.  851,  pi.  vii,  9 = Inv.  "Wadd.  pi.  ii,  9,  and  Traits  II®, 

No.  2561,  pi.  clxxii,  5;  J.  T.  N.  1902,  32c,  pi.  iii,  17. 

0.-  16mm.  8.39  gr.  Boston  (Greenwell-Warren) ; 11-/3.  Plate  I,  13 

From  the  Avoia  Find.  Greenwell,  Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  26,  pi.  iii,  11;  Kegling,  Samm.  War- 
ren, No.  1011,  pi.  xxiii;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  32a,  pi.  iii,  15. 

d.  16mm.  8.33  gr.  Jameson,  Paris ; II-/S.  Plate  I,  14 

Cat.  Sandeman,  No.  236,  pi.  iv  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  June,  1911);  Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1444a, 
pi.  xcv  (Paris,  1913). 

a-d,  two  obverse  dies  - — a and  h,  c and  d identical ; two  reverse  dies  — h,  c,  and 
d,  identical. 

9 Head  of  Demeter  r.,  wearing  corn  wreath,  hair  rolled. 

Similar. 

a.  16mm.  8.38  gr.  Berlin  (Lobbecke)  ; I-a.  Plate  I,  15 

From  the  Avola  Find.  Lobbecke,  Zeit.  f.  Num.  1890,  p.  169,  No.  4,  pi.  vi  (x),  4;  J.  I.  N. 
1902,  17b,  pi.  ii,  10. 

h.  14mm.  8.42  gr.  London ; TI-^.  Plate  I,  16 

From  the  Avola  Find.  Wroth,  Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  324,  No.  24,  pi.  xix,  14,  and  B.  M.  C. 
Mysia,  No.  23,  pi.  xix,  1;  Farnell,  Cults  of  the  Greek  States,  III,  Coin  Plate,  20;  Babelon,  Traitd 
IP,  No.  2545,  pi.  clxxi,  12;  Num.  Chron.  1891,  p.  116;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  17a,  pi.  ii,  9. 

a-  and  5,  different  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 

JO  Head  of  Dionysus  1.,  bearded,  wearing  ivy  wreath  with  a bunch  of  ivy  berries 
over  the  forehead. 

Similar. 


22 


The  Amekican  JouEisrAL  op  Numismatics 


a.  16mm.  8.41  gr.  London  (formerly  Sir  H.  Weber)  ; unique.  Plate  I,  17 
Greenwell,  Num  Chron.  1893,  p.  8o;  Weber,  Num.  Chron.  1896,  p.  23,  No.  43,  pi.  ii,  19; 
Babelon,  Traits  II^,  No.  2553;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  24a,  pi.  iii,  1. 

U Head  of  a Maenad  1.,  hair  rolled,  loose  locks  falling  on  neck ; wearing  ivy 
wreath  with  berries,  ear-ring  with  a single  pendant,  and  necklace. 

Similar. 

a.  17mm.  8.42  gr.  Berlin  (Fox)  ; I-a.  Plate  I,  18 

Numismata  Antiqua  (Pembroke  Coll.),  1746,  pi.  iv,  9;  Sestini,  Stater!  Antichi,  p.  63,  No.  8, 

pi.  vi,  6;  Cat.  Pembroke,  No.  880  (Sotheby,  London,  July,  1848);  Brandis,  op.  eit.,  p.  410;  Leake, 
Num.  Hell.  (As.  Gr.)  p.  72;  Six,  Num.  Chron.  1888,  p.  Ill,  No.  9;  Babelon,  Traitd  IP,  No.  2556, 
pi.  clxxi,  24;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  27a,  pi.  iii,  10. 

b.  16mm.  8.45  gr.  (Formerly  Philipsen) ; 1J-/3.  Plate  I,  19 

Cat.  Philipsen,  No.  1791,  pi.  xxi  (Hirsch  XXV,  Munich,  Nov.  1909);  Cat.  Monn.  gr.  ant. 

pi.  xxix,  794  (Naville  et  Cie,  Geneva,  1922). 

e.  18mm.  8.38  gr.  Jameson,  Paris ; III-y8.  Plate  I,  20 

Found  in  Egypt.  Babelon,  Traits  IP,  No.  2556,  pi.  clxxi,  23;  Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1438,  pi. 
Ixxiii,  Paris,  1913.  From  the  Avierino  Coll.  = (?)  Dr.  Edd^,  Has.  Num.  1909,  p.  55. 

a-c,  three  obverse  dies ; two  reverse  dies  b and  c identical. 

J2  Head  of  young  Pan  1.,  beardless,  with  a goat’s  horn. 

Similar. 

a.  16mm.  8.37  gr.  Boston  (Perkins)  ; unique.  Plate  I,  21 

Found  in  Crete.  Svoronos,  J.  I.  N.  1899,  p.  301,  pi.  lA',  12;  Cat.  of  Perkins  Coll.  pi.  v, 
428;  Babelon,  Traitd  II^,  No.  2560,  pi.  clxxii,  4;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  31a,  pi.  iii,  14. 

J3  Head  of  young  Hermes  1.,  hair  short,  wearing  flat  petasos,  without  wings,  on 
top  of  which,  a button ; band  of  petasos  visible. 

Similar,  but  middle  section  of  r.  wing  has  now  evolved  into  a “ ladder  pat- 
tern ” which  begins  to  be  seen  also  on  the  lowered  1.  wing.^ 

a.  16mm.  8.45  gr.  Berlin  (Lobbecke)  ; I-a.  Plate  I,  22 

From  the  Avola  Find.  Lobbecke,  Zeit.  f.  Num.  1890,  pi.  vi  (x),  7;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  18b,  pi. 

ii,  12. 

b.  17mm.  8.55  gr.  (Formerly  O’Hagan)  ; H-/3.  Plate  I,  23 

Cat.  O’Hagan,  No.  535,  pi.  ix  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  May,  1908). 

c.  16mm.  8.38  gr.  Jameson,  Paris  (formerly  Durufle)  ; Hl-y.  Plate  I,  24 

Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1436,  pi.  Ixxiii  (Paris,  1913). 

d.  17mm.  8.45  gr.  Paris  (Waddington)  ; IV-7.  Plate  I,  25 

Babelon,  Eev.  Num.  1897,  p.  318,  No.  860,  pi.  vii,  4 = Inv.  Wadd.  pi.  ii,  4,  and  Traits  II^, 

No.  2546,  pi.  clxxi,  13;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  18a,  pi.  ii,  11. 

e.  18mm.  8.40  gr.  Boston  (Greenwell-Warren) ; V-S.  Plate  I,  26 

Greenwell,  Num.  Chron.  1897,  p.  258,  pi.  xi,  11;  Eegling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1013,  pi. 

xxiii;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  18c. 

a-e,  five  obverse  dies  ; four  reverse  dies — c and  d identical. 

1 The  feathered  end  of  the  wing  also  from  now  on  shows  a fine  cross-hatching  visible  first 
on  types  Nos.  11  and  12. 


The  Gold  Staters  op  Lampsakos 


23 


J4  Head  of  Apollo  1.,  hair  rolled,  wearing  a laurel  wreath,  and  a knotted  bande- 
lette,  or  fillet,  which  passes  over  his  front  hair,  back  of  the  ears,  and  hangs  down  on 
either  side. 

Similar. 

a.  17mm.  8.40  gr.  Munich;  1-a.  Plate  I,  27 

Sestini,  Stateri  Antichi,  p.  63,  No.  9,  pi.  vi,  7;  Mionnet,  Descr.  de  M^d.  Sup.  V,  p.  369,  No. 

544;  Brandis,  op.  dt.  p.  410;  Six,  Num.  Chron.  1888,  p.  Ill,  No.  7,  also  p.  110,  note  47;  Babelon, 
Traitd  IP,  No.  2543,  pi.  clxxi,  9;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  15a,  pi.  ii,  6. 

b.  18mm.  8.41  gr.  Jameson,  Paris  (formerly  Warren);  II-/3.  Plate  I,  28 

Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1440,  pi.  Ixxiii  (Paris,  1913);  Eegling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1010,  pi. 

xxiii;  Cat.  Well-known  Amateur  (Warren),  No.  99,  pi.  iii  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  May,  1905); 
Babelon,  Traitd  II^,  No.  2543,  pi.  clxxi,  10. 

a and  b,  different  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 

15  Head  of  bearded  Herakles  1.  in  lion’s  scalp. 

Similar. 

a.  15mm.  8.40  gr.  Berlin  (Lobbecke)  ; unique.  Plate  I,  29 

From  the  Avola  Find.  Lobbecke,  Zeit.  f.  Num.  1890,  p.  169,  No.  6,  pi.  yi  (x),  6;  Babelon, 
Traitd  IP,  No.  2557,  pi.  clxxii,  1;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  28a,  pi.  iii,  11. 

16  Head  of  Demeter  1.,  wearing  a corn  wreath  and  veil,  ear-ring  with  triple 
pendant,  and  necklace. 

Ip'  Similar. 

a.  17mm.  8.50  gr.  Paris  (Old  Coll.)  ; 1-a.  Plate  I,  30 

Cat.  Wellenheim  I,  4890  (Vienna,  1844);  Six,  Num.  Chron.  1888,  p.  Ill,  No.  8,  also  1894, 

p.  310;  Babelon,  Trait4  IP,  No.  2544,  pi.  clxxi,  11;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  16b,  pi.  ii,  8. 

b. ^  17mm.  5.29  gr.  (plated).  London ; II-/3.  Plate  I,  31 

Wroth,  B.  M.  C.  No.  27,  pi.  xix,  5;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  16a,  pi.  ii,  7. 

a and  6,  different  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 

17  Head  of  a Maenad  thrown  back,  with  flying  hair,  wearing  ivy  wreath,  with 
berries  over  the  forehead,  ear-ring  with  triple  pendant,  and  necklace ; interwoven  in 
her  hair  is  a diadem,  ends  flying,  sometimes  fringed. 

Similar. 

a.  16mm.  8.44  gr.  Boston  (Perkins,  formerly  Ashburnham)  ; 1-a.  Plate  I,  32 

Cat.  Ashburnham,  No.  151,  pi.  iv  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  May,  1895);  Cat.  of  Perkins  Coll. 

pi.  V,  429;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  25e. 

b.  17mm.  8.46  gr.  London ; Il-a.  Plate  I,  33 

Head,  Guide,  p.  37,  No.  15,  pi.  xviii,  15;  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  No.  29,  pi.  xix,  7;  J.  I.  N.  1902, 

25c,  pi.  iii,  6. 

^ The  second  example  6,  is  a plated  coin,  which  has  been  regarded  by  the  British  Museum 
authorities  as  an  undent  forgery.  Its  appearance  at  first  glance  is  not  reassuring,  and  one’s  first 
impulse  is  to  condemn  it  from  its  brassy  look  as  a modern  product.  The  obverse,  however  (note 
the  single-drop  ear-ring) , looks  like  ancient  work,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  stigmata  of  a modern 
fabrication,  it  seems  safe  to  consider  it,  with  Wroth,  as  an  ancient  plated  coin. 


24 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


c.  17mm.  8.46  gr.  (Formerly  Caruso)  ; II-^. 

Cat.  Monn.  gr.  ant.  (Durufl^),  No.  508,  pi.  xii  (R.  et  F.,  Paris,  May,  1910);  Cat.  Collezione 
Caruso,  No.  68,  pi.  ii  (C.  & E.  Canessa,  Naples,  June,  1923). 

d.  16mm.  8.49  gr.  Jameson,  Paris ; III-7.  Plate  I,  34 

Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1444,  pi.  Ixxiv  (Paris,  1913)  = (?)  Dr.  Edd4,  Rass.  Num.  1909,  p.  55. 

e.  16mm.  8.46  gr.  Cambridge  (McClean) ; III-S.  Plate  I,  35 

/.  16mm.  8.47  gr.  Bement,  Philadelphia ; IV-S. 

Cat.  Gr.,  Rom.  u.  Byz.  Miinzen,  No.  465,  pi.  xv  (Hirsch,  XXXIV,  Munich,  May,  1914); 
Cat.  C.  S.  Bement  Coll.,  pi.  xvii,  256  (New  York,  1921). 

g.  16mm.  8.54  gr.  YakountchikofE,  Petrograd  (formerly  Hoskier)  ; V-3. 

Cat.  Hoskier,  No.  371,  pi.  xiii  (Hirsch  XX,  Munich,  Nov.  1907  = Hirsch  XVIII,  No.  2440, 
Munich,  1907). 

li.  16mm.  8.45  gr.  ; V-e. 

Cat.  Hirsch  XII,  1904,  No.  230. 

i.  16mm.  8.40  gr.  (Formerly  Pozzi)  ; VI-3. 

Cat.  Monn.  gr.  ant.,  pi.  Ixvii,  2229  (Naville  et  Cie,  Geneva,  1920). 

j.  16mm.  8.38  gr.  ; VI-3. 

Cat.  Monn.  gr.  ant.,  pi.  xxix,  792  (Naville  et  Cie,  Geneva,  1922). 

k.  16mm.  8.42  gr.  (Formerly  Consul  W eber)  ; Vl-e. 

l.  16mm.  gr.  In  commerce  (1914)  ; VI-?. 

m.  16mm.  8.40  gr.  ; Vl-f. 

Cat.  Monn.  gr.  ant.,  pi.  xxix,  793  (Naville  et  Cie,  Geneva,  1922). 

n.  17mm.  8.43  gr.  Berlin  (Prokesch-Osten)  ; VII-?;.  Plate  II,  1 

Cat.  Thomas,  No.  1998  (Sotheby,  London,  1844) ; Von  Sallet,  Konigl.  Munz-kabinet,  1877, 

p.  86,  No.  212;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  25d. 

0.  17mm.  8.48  gr.  Glasgow  (Hunter)  ; VIII-0.  Plate  II,  2 

Combe,  Mus.  Hunter,  p.  165,  No.  2,  pi.  xxxi,  23;  Mionnet,  Descr.  de  M4d.  II,  p.  560,  No. 
290;  Sestini,  Stateri  Autichi,  p.  63,  No.  7,  pi.  vi,  5;  Brandis,  op.  cit.,  p.  410;  Macdonald,  Hunter 
Coll.  II,  p.  271,  No.  4;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  25f. 

p.  17mm.  8.44  gr.  Paris  (Waddington) ; IX-i.  Plate  II,  3 

Babelon,  Rev.  Num.  1897,  p.  318,  No.  862,  pi.  vii,  6 = Inv.  Wadd.,  pi.  ii,  6,  and  Traitd  IP, 

No.  2554,  pi.  clxxi,  21;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  25b,  pi.  hi,  5. 

q.  18mm.  8.45  gr.  Paris  (de  Luynes)  ; IX-t.  Plate  II,  4 

• De  Luynes,  Choix,  pi.  ix,  18;  Blanche!,  Monn.  gr.,  pi.  v,  5;  Brandis,  op.  dt.,  p.  409;  Im- 

hoof-Blumer,  J.  I.  N.  1908,  p.  130,  pi.  viii,  35;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  25a,  pi.  hi,  4. 

a-q  (seventeen  specimens)  nine  obverse  dies  — b and  e ; d and  e ; g and  Ti ; i-m ; 
p and  q,  identical.  Ten  reverse  dies  — a and  3;  e-g,i,j ; Ti,k',p,q,  identical. 

J8  Head  of  Athena  1.,  wearing  crested  Athenian  helmet  with  raised  cheek-piece 
and  scroll  ornament ; ear-ring  with  triple  pendant,  and  necklace. 

B/  Similar. 

a.  18mm.  8.42  gr.  Paris  (Waddington);  I-a.  Plate  II,  5 

Babelon,  Rev.  Num.  1897,  p.  318,  No.  858,  pi.  vii,  2 = Inv.  Wadd.,  pi.  ii,  2,  and  Traits  II^, 
No.  2540,  pi.  clxxi,  6;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  12a,  pi.  ii,  1. 


The  (3-old  Statbes  op  Lampsakos 


25 


b.  17mm.  8.42  gr.  Boston  (Green well-Warren)  ; ll-a.  Plate  II,  6 

Ftoih  the  Asia  Minor  (Troad)  Find.  Greenweli,  Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  26,  pi.  hi,  12;  Eeg- 
ling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1008,  pi.  xxiii;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  12b,  pi.  ii,  2. 

e.  16mm.  8.37  gr.  Glasgow  (Hunter)  ; Plate  II,  7 

Macdonald,  Hunter.  Coll.  II,  p.  271,  No.  3,  pi.  xlviii,  3;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  12d. 

d.  17mm.  8.42  gr.  Berlin  (Lobbecke)  ; I V~.  Plate  II,  8 

From  the  Avoia  Find.  Lobbecke,  Zeit.  f.  Num.  1890,  p.  169,  No.  5,  pi.  vi  (x),  5;  J.  I,  N. 

1902, 12c,  pi.  ii,  3. 

a-d,  four  obverse  dies;  two  reverse  dies — a and  5,  c and.  d,  identical. 

J9  Head  of  a Maenad  1.,  wearing  a wreath  composed  of  vine  leaves  and  bunches 
of  grapes,  ear-ring  with  triple  pendant,  necklace  and  sphendone. 

Similar. 

a.  16mm.  8.41  gr.  Jameson,  Paris ; I-a.  Plate  II,  9 

Found  in  Egypt.  Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1437,  pL  Ixxiii;  Dr.  Eddd,  Eass.  Num.  1909,  p.  55. 

1.  17mm.  8.42  gr.  Boston  (G.reenwell-Warren) ; II-^.  Plate  II,  10 

From  the  Asia  Minor  Find.  Greenweli,  Num.  Chron.  1890,  p-.  26,  pi.  iii,  14;  Eegiing, 
Samm.  Warren,  .No.  1015,  pi.  xxiii;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  26c,  pi.  iii,  8. 

e.  17mm.  8.44  gr.  Paris  (Waddington)  ; Plate  II,  11 

Babelon,  Eev.  Num.  1897,  p.  318,  No.  863,  pi.  vii,  7 = Inv.  Wadd.,  pi.  ii,  7,  and  Traitd 

II2,  No.  2655,  pi.  clxxi,  22;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  26a. 

d.  16mm.  8.46  gr.  Berlin  (Lobbecke) ; IV-7.  Plate  II,  12 

From  the  Avola  Find.  Lobbecke,  Zeit.  f.  Nam.  1890,  p.  170,  No.  8,  pi.  vi  (x),  8;  J.  I.  N. 

1902,  26d,  pi.  iii,  9. 

e.  18mm.  8.40  gr.  Berlin  (Imhoof-Blumer)-;  V-7.  Plate  II,  13 

Imhoof-Blumer,  J.  I.  N.  1908,  p.  130,  pi.  viii,  34;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  26b,  pi.  iii,  7. 

a-e,  five  obverse  dies;  three  reverse  dies— -5  and  c,  d and  e,  identical.^ 

20  Head  of  Athena,  facing  three-quarters  to  r.,  wearing  triple-crested  helmet, 
round  ear-ring,  and  necklace. 

57  Similar. 

a.  16mm.  8.42  gr.  Paris  (Waddington);  unique.  Plate  II,  14 

Num.  Chron.  1894,  p.  310;  Babelon,  Eev.  Num.  1897,  p.  318,  No.  859,  pi.  vii,  3 = Inv. 

Wadd.,  pi.  ii,  3,  and  Traitd  II®,  No.  2.541 , pi.  clxxi,  7;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  18a,  pi.  ii,  4. 

21  Head  of  the  Persian  satrap,  Orontes,  L,  bearded,  wearing  tiara  with  loose,  un- 
tied flaps. 

E7  Similar. 

a.  17mm.  8.43  gr.  Glasgow  (Hunter)  ; 1-a.  Plate  II,  15 

Combe,  Mus.  Hunter,  p.  165,  No.  1,  pi.  xxxi,  22;  Sestini,  Lett,  e Diss.  IV  (Livorno,  1779), 
p.  69,  No.  1,  and  Stateri  Antichi,  p.  63,  No.  5,  pi.  vi,  4;  Mionnet,  Descr.  de  Mdd.  II,  p.  560,  No. 
289;  Leake,  Num.  Hell.  (As.  Gr.),  p.  148;  De  Koehne,  Mdmoires,  pi.  xii,  36;  Eev.  Num.  1861, 
p.  16,  pi.  ii,  3;  Num.  Zeit.  1871,  p.  425;  Macdonald , Hunter.  Coll.  II,  p.  271,  No.  2,  pi.  xlviii,  2; 
P.  Gardner,  Gold  Coinage  of  Asia,  Proc.  of  Brit.  Academy,  1908,  pi.  ii,  12;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  34a,  pi. 
iii,  21. 

^ The  reverse  dies  c and  d have  become  interchanged  in  setting  up  the  casts. 


26 


The  AMERiCAisr  Journal  of  Numismatics 


h.  17mm.  8.43  gr.  Paris;  II-/3.  Plate  II,  16 

Babelon,  Traits  No.  2563,  pi.  clxxii,  7. 

c.  16mm.  8.34  gr.  Jameson,  Paris ; III-»y.  Plate  II,  17 

Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1443a,  pi.  xcv  (Paris,  1913). 
a-c,  different  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 

22  Head  of  Dionysus  1.,  bearded,  wearing  ivy  wreath  with  a bunch  of  ivy  berries 
over  the  forehead. 

p/  Similar;  middle  section  of  r.  wing  feathered  as  on  types  3-12  and  32  ff. 

a.  17mm.  8.30  gr.  Paris  (Waddington)  ; I-a.  Plate  II,  18 

Babelon,  Kev.  Num.  1897,  p.  318,  No.  861,  pi.  vii,  5 = Inv.  Wadd.,  pi.  ii,  5,  and  Traits  II^, 
No.  2553,  pi.  clxxi,  20;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  24c,  pi.  ill,  3. 

h.  18mm.  8.30  gr.  Jameson,  Paris  (formerly  Durufle)  ; I-a.  Plate  II,  19 

Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1443,  pi.  Ixxiii  (Paris,  1913). 
a and  6,  same  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 

23  Head  of  Helios  1.,  hair  in  loose  locks,  on  a radiate  disk. 

P?  Similar. 

a.  16mm.  8.43  gr.  Jameson,  Paris;  I-a.  Plate  II,  20 

Found  in  Egypt.  Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1435,  pi.  Ixxii  (Paris,  1913).  From  the  Avierino 
Coll.  = (?)Dr.  Eddd,  Bass.  Num.  1909,  p.  56. 

h.  17mm.  8.43  gr.  Paris  (Waddington)  ; Il-a.  Plate  II,  21 

Head,  Hist.  Num.,  p.  530,  fig.  281;  Six,  Num.  Chron.  1888,  p.  Ill,  No.  5;  Babelon,  Rev. 
Num.  1897,  p.  319,  No.  857,  pi.  vii,  11  = Inv.  Wadd.,  pi.  ii,  11,  and  Traitd  IP,  No.  2551,  pi.  clxxi, 
18;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  22a,  pi.  ii,  21. 

a and  h,  different  obverse,  but  same  reverse  dies. 

24  Bearded  head  of  Zeus  1.,  wearing  laurel  wreath. 

Similar. 

a.  18mm.  8.43  gr.  Jameson,  Paris  ; I-a.  Plate  II,  22 

From  the  Avola  Find.  Cat.  Gr.  Miinzen,  No.  617  (Hirsch  XVI,  Munich,  1906);  Cat.  Jam- 
eson, No.  1438,  pi.  Ixiii  (Paris,  191.3). 

b.  18mm.  gr.  In  commerce  ; Il-a.  Plate  II,  23 

Head,  Hist.  Num.,  p.  530,  fig.  279  (from  an  electrotype  in  the  Brit.  Mus.);  J.  I.  N.  1902, 

8b,  pi.  i,  12. 

c.  17mra.  8.45  gr.  Paris  (de  Luynes) ; Ill-a.  Plate  II,  24 

De  Luynes,  Choix,  pi.  x,  17;  Blanche!,  Monn.  gr.,  pi.  v,  6;  Brandis,  op.  dt..  p.  410;  Babe- 
lon, Traitd  II^,  No.  2536,  pi.  clxxi,  2;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  8c,  pi.  i,  13. 

d.  18mm.  8.40  gr.  In  commerce  (1902)  ; IV-/3. 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  8a,  pi.  ii,  11. 

a-d,  four  obverse  dies  ; two  reverse  dies  — a-c,  identical. 

25  Ge,  wearing  girdled  chiton,  and  himation,  rising  1.  from  the  earth,  holding  in 
r.  hand  three  ears  of  corn ; behind  her,  two  ears  of  corn  and  vine  bearing  two  bunches 
of  grapes  ; she  wears  corn  wreath  (?)  ; ground  line. 

Similar. 


The  Gold  Staters  op  Lampsakos 


27 


a.  17mm.  8.37  gr.  London  (Payne-Knight) ; I-a.  Plate  II,  25 

Payne-Knight,  Nummi  Veteres,  p.  130,  No.  1;  Millingen,  Anc.  Greek  Coins,  p.  69,  No.  1, 

pi.  V,  7 ; Mionnet,  Descr.  de  M^d.,  Supp.  V,  p.  371,  No.  556;  Head,  Guide,  p.  37,  No.  16,  pi.  xviii, 
16,  and  Hist.  Num.,  p.  529,  fig.  277;  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  No.  26,  pi.  xix,  4;  Gardner,  Types,  p.  174, 
pi.  X,  25;  Babelon,  Traits  IP,  No.  2533,  pi.  clxx,  32;  Gardner,  Gold  Coinage  of  Asia,  Proc.  Brit. 
Academy,  1908,  pi.  ii,  11;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  7a,  pi.  i,  10. 

b.  17mm.  8.37  gr.  (Formerly  Sir  H.  Weber,  London)  ; I-a.  Plate  II,  26 
J.  I.  N.  1902,  7b. 

a and  h,  same  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 

26  Nike,  winged,  semi-nude,  kneeling  r.  before  a trophy ; in  1.  hand,  nail ; in  r. 
hand,  a hammer  with  which  she  is  about  to  attach  a helmet  to  trophy ; her  hair  is  gath- 
ered up  into  a knot  on  crown  of  her  head ; she  wears  necklace. 

Similar. 

a.  18mm.  8.43  gr.  London  (Bank  of  England  Coll,  ex  H.  P.  Borrell)  ; unique. 

Plate  II,  27 

Found  in  Egypt.  Cf.  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  p.  82,  note;  Borrell,  Num.  Chron.  1843,  p.  155; 
Brandis,  op.  cit.,  p.  410;  Head,  Guide,  p.  37,  pi.  xviii,  19;  Gardner,  Types,  p.  173,  pi.  x,  24;  Head, 
Hist.  Num.,  p.  529,  fig.  278;  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  No.  31,  pi.  xix,  9;  Babelon,  Traits  IP,  No.  2535, 
pi.  clxxi,  1;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  5a,  pi.  i,  8. 

27  Female  head,  the  nymph  Lampsake  (?)  1.,  wearing  ear-ring  with  triple  pendant, 
and  necklace  ; hair  rolled  ; linear  circle. 

117  Similar. 

a.  17mm.  8.40  gr.  Paris  (Old  Coll.)  ; I-a.  Plate  II,  28 

Pellerin,  Eecueil  II,  p.  51,  pi.  xlix,  2;  Sestim,  Lett,  e Diss.  (Livorno,  1779),  IV,  p.  69; 

Mionnet,  Cat.  d’Empreintes,  p.  42,  No.  826,  and  Descr.  de  M^d.  II,  p.  560,  No.  286;  Sestini, 
Stateri  Antichi,  p.  64,  No.  10,  pi.  vi,  8;  Brandis,  op.  cit.,  p.  410;  Six,  Num.  Chron.  1888,  p.  Ill, 

No.  6;  Babelon,  Traits  IP,  No.  2565,  pi.  clxxii,  9;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  36a,  pi.  iii,  23. 

b.  18mm.  8.32  gr.  London  (formerly  Sir  H.  W eber)  ; I-a.  Plate  II,  29 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  36b. 

a and  5,  identical  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 

28  Head  of  Hera  1.,  wearing  stephane  decorated  with  a palmette,  and  necklace. 
117  Similar. 

a.  18mm.  8.42  gr.  London  (formerly  Sir  H.  Weber)  ; unique.  Plate  II,  30 

Weber,  Num.  Chron.  1896,  p.  23,  pi.  ii,  18;  Babelon,  Traits  IP,  No.  2538,  pi.  clxxi,  4;  J.  I. 
N.  1902,  10a,  pi.  i,  19. 

29  Head  of  Zeus  L,  bearded,  hair  long,  wearing  laurel  wreath ; behind  neck, 
sceptre  (not  thunderbolt'). 

B7  Similar. 

a.  19mm.  8.41  gr.  Boston  (Perkins) ; I-a. 

Cat.  of  Perkins  Coll.,  pi.  v,  426;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  9j. 

h.  18mm.  8.45  gr.  London;  I-/3.  Plate  II,  31 

From  the  Asia  Minor  Find.  Wroth,  Num.  Chron.  1889,  p.  257,  pi.  xii,  12;  B.  M.  C.  Mysia, 

No.  28,  pi.  xix,  6;  Journ.  Hell.  Studies,  1897,  p.  85,  pi.  ii,  12;  J I.  N.  1902,  9b,  pi.  i,  15. 


28 


The  Amekican  Journal  of  Numismatics 


c.  19mm.  8.42  gr.  Brussels  (du  Chastel)  ; I-^S.  Plate  II,  32 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  9i. 

d.  18mm.  8.41  gr.  London  (formerly  Sir  H.  Weber)  ; I-/S.  Plate  II,  33 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  9o. 

e.  17mm.  8.35  gr.  (Formerly  Late  Collector)  ; I-/3. 

Cat.  Late  Collector,  No.  325,  pi.  vii  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  May,  1900);  J.  I.  N.  1902,  9m. 
/.  18mm.  8.41  gr.  Munich;  I-7.  Plate  II,  34 

Riggauer,  Mitt,  der  bayer  Num.  Gesellschaft,  1901,  p.  142,  pi.  v,  3;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  9g. 

g.  18mm.  8.41  gr.  Boston  (Perkins)  ; L7.  Plate  II  , 35 

Cat.  of  Perkins  Coll.,  No.  427;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  9k. 

h.  18mm.  8.42  gr.  Newell,  New  York ; I-7. 

i.  18mm.  8.42  gr.  Yakountchikoff,  Petrograd ; I-7.  Plate  III,  1 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  9n. 

j.  18mm.  gr.  (Formerly  Durufle)  ; I-7. 

Cat.  Monn.  gr.  ant..  No.  507,  pi.  xii  (E.  et  F.,  Paris,  May,  1910). 

k.  19mm.  8.46  gr.  Warren  Coll.  (Lewes) ; I-7. 

Regling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1005,  pi.  xxiii. 

l.  18mm.  8.44  gr.  (Formerly  Pozzi)  ; I-7. 

Monn.  gr.  ant.,  pi.  Ixvii,  2239  (Naville  et  Cie,  Geneva,  1920). 

m.  18mm.  8.40  gr.  Berlin  (Lobbecke) ; 1-3.  Plate  III,  2 

From  the  Asia  Minor  Find.  Lobbecke,  Zeit.  f.  Num.  1890,  pp.  8,  178,  pi.  i,  11;  J.  I.  N. 

1902,  9d,  pi.  i,  17. 

n.  19mm.  8.47  gr.  (Formerly  Warren) ; 1-3. 

Regling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1004,  pi.  xxiii;  Cat.  Well-Known  Amateur,  Warren,  No.  97, 
pi.  iii  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  May,  1905). 

0.  17mm.  8.43  gr.  Paris  (Old  Coll.)  ; 1-3. 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  9c,  pi.  i,  16. 

p.  18mm.  8.39  gr.  New  York  (Metropolitan  Mus.,  Ward)  ; I-e. 

Hill,  Cat.  of  Ward  Coll.,  p.  100,  pi.  xv,  611;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  9f. 

q.  18mm.  gr.  I-e. 

Cat.  Engel-Gros,  pi.  iii,  57  (Paris,  1921). 

r.  18mm.  8.42  gr.  (Formerly  O’Hagan) ; I-e. 

Cat.  O’Hagan,  No.  534,  pi.  ix  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  May,  1908). 

s.  17mm.  8.45  gr.  (Formerly  Philipsen)  ; I I-e. 

Cat.  Philipsen,  No.  1790,  pi.  xxi  (Hirsch  XV,  Munich,  Nov.  1909);  J.  I.  N.  1902,  9h,  pi.  i,  18. 

t.  17mm.  8.40  gr.  (Formerly  Consul  Weber)  ; Il-e. 

Cat.  Weber,  No.  2449,  pi.  xxxiv  (Hirsch  XXI,  Munich,  Nov.  1908);  J.  I.  N.  1902,  9e. 

u.  I7mm.  8.50  gr.  (Formerly  Huskier)  ; I I-e. 

Cat.  Hoskier,  No.  370,  pi.  xiii  (Hirsch  XX,  Munich,  Nov.  1907,  ex  Hirsch  XVI,  1906,  No. 

616). 

V.  19mm.  8.47  gr.  Paris  (Waddington) ; Ill-e.  Plate  III,  3 

Babelon,  Rev.  Num.  1897,  p.  318,  No.  857,  pi.  vii,  1 = Inv.  Wadd.,  pi.  iii,  and  Traits  II^,  No. 
2537,  pi.  clxxi,  3;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  9a,  pi.  i,  14. 

w.  18mm.  8.45  gr.  (Formerly  Fiirst  Ch.  v.  A.)  ; Ill-e. 


Plate  III,  4 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


29 


Cat.  Gr.  Miinzen,  No.  539,  pi.  xvi  (Egger,  Vienna,  Jan.  1908);  Cat.  Kom.  u.  Gr.  Miinzen, 
No.  3056,  pi.  28  (Merzbacher,  Munich , Nov.  1909). 

X.  19mm.  8.45  gr.  Jameson,  Paris  (formerly  Durufle) ; IV-?.  Plate  III,  5 

Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1442,  pi.  Ixxiii  (Paris,  1913). 

y.  19mm.  8.41  gr.  Cambridge  (McClean,  formerly  Montagu);  IV-?. 

Plate  III,  6 

Cat.  Montagu,  First  Part,  No.  520,  pi.  vii  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  March,  1896);  J.  I.  N. 
1902,  9p. 

z.  17mm.  8.45  gr.  (Formerly  de  Molthein)  ; IV-?. 

Cat.  W.  de  Molthein,  No.  1884,  pi.  xiv  (R.  et  F.,  Paris,  1895);  Cat.  Prowe,  No.  1242,  pi. 
viii  (Egger,  Vienna,  Nov.  1904);  J.  I.  N.  1902,  9q. 

aa.  18mm.  gr.  (Formerly  Collection  H.  H.);  IV-?. 

Cat.  Monn.  d’or  antiques,  pi.  i,  34  (C.  Platt,  Paris,  1922). 

hb.  19ram.  8.42  gr.  (Formerly  Warren)^;  IV-?. 

Regling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1003,  pi.  xxiii;  Cat.  American  Artist  and  well-known  Amateur, 
No.  51  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  1910). 

cc.  18mm.  8.43  gr.  Bemeiit,  Philadelphia  (formerly  Allatini)  ; IV-?. 

Cat.  C.  S.  Bement  Coll.,  pi.  xvii,  255  (New  York,  1921). 

dd.  17mm.  8.56  gr.  Petrograd  (Hermitage) ; V-f.  Plate  III,  7 

a-dd  (thirty  specimens),  five  obverse  dies  - — a-r ; s-u\  v,  w ; x-ce,  identical ; seven 
reverse  dies  — b-e  ; f-l ; m~o;  p-w ; x-cc. 

30  Head  of  Nike  1.,  wearing  wreath  of  myrtle  (?) ; hair  roiled ; small  wing 
springs  from  her  neck. 

Similar. 

a.  18mm.  8.45  gr.  Yakountchikoff,  Petrograd ; 1-a.  Plate  III,  8 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  35c. 

b.  17mm.  8.36  gr.  Paris  (de  Luynes)  ; II-/3.  Plate  III,  9 

Brandis,  op.  cit.,  p.  410;  Six,  Num.  Chron.  1888,  p.  Ill,  No.  16;  Babelon,  Traitd  II^,  No. 

2552,  pi.  clxxi,  19;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  23a,  pi.  ii,  22. 

c.  17mm.  8.42  gr.  ; III-7. 

Cat.  Monn.  gr.  ant.,  pi.  xxix,  791  (Naville  et  Cie,  Geneva,  1922). 

d.  17mm.  8.45  gr.  London ; III-7.  Plate  III,  10 

Wroth,  Num.  Chron.  1894,  p.  10,  pi.  i,  11;  Jour.  Hell.  Studies,  1897,  p.  85,  pi.  ii,  14;  J.  I. 

N.  1902,  23b,  pi.  ii,  23. 

e.  17mm.  8.38  gr.  Jameson,  Paris  (formerly  Durufle)  ; III-7.2  Plate  III,  11 

Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1441,  pi.  Ixxiii  (Paris,  1913). 

a-e,  three  different  obverse  dies — b and  c ; d and  e,  identical.  Three  different  re- 
verse dies  — c-e,  identical. 

1 The  stater,  formerly  of  the  Warren  Collection,  No.  1006  (19mm.  8.43  gr.),  has  not  been 
seen  by  the  author  in  cast  or  photograph,  and  it  is  therefore  uncertain  whether  or  not  this  is  iden- 
tical with  any  of  the  above  thirty  examples. 

2 The  left  background  of  the  obverse  die  has  been  cut  away  to  make  room  for  an  inscription 
which  appears  on  the  coin  in  front  of  the  head  of  Nike.  The  reverse  die  also  has  lightly  impressed 
countermarks  below  and  in  front  of  the  Pegasos.  The  inscription  appears  to  be  in  Cypriote 
characters,  but  seems  indecipherable. 


30 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


31  Head  of  Herakles,  as  Omphale,  bearded ; hair  rolled,  wearing  stephane ; be- 
hind neck,  a club. 

R7  Similar. 

a.  18mm.  8.37  gr.  Boston  (Greenwell-Warren) ; unique.  Plate  III,  12 

Greenwell,  Num.  Cliron.  1893,  p.  84,  pi.  vii,  7;  Kegling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1017,  pi.  xxiii; 
Babelon,  Traits  II^,  no.  2568,  pi.  clxxii,  2;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  29a,  pi.  iii,  12. 

32  Head  of  a female  Satyr  1.,  hair  long,  several  stray  locks  over  forehead  and 
cheek,  with  pointed  goat’s  ear ; she  wears  an  ivy  wreath  with  bunch  of  ivy  leaves  over 
forehead ; ear-ring  with  single  pendant,  and  necklace. 

IV  Similar,  but  the  middle  section  of  r.  wing  is  no  longer  of  “ ladder  pattern  ”, 
first  seen  in  Types  13ff.,  but  reverts  to  style  of  earlier  Types,  Nos.  3ff.,  a narrow  feath- 
ered section. 

a.  18mm.  8.32  gr.  London ; unique.  Plate  III,  13 

Knight,  Num.  Vet.,  p.  131  (B),  6;  Head,  Guide,  p.  37,  pi.  xviii,  18;  Head,  Hist.  Num.,  p. 
5.30,  fig.  282;  Six,  Num.  Chron.  1888,  p.  Ill,  No.  18;  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  No.  24,  pi.  xix,  2;  Babe- 
Ion,  Traits  II'^,  No.  2559,  pi  clxxii,  13;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  30a,  pi.  iii,  13. 

33  Head  of  Aktaion,  beardless,  hair  short,  curly,  with  stag’s  horn. 

IV  Similar. 

a.  18mm.  8.39  gr.  (Formerly  Warren) ; 1-a. 

Cat.  Late  Collector,  No.  326,  pi.  vii  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  May,  1900);  Kegling,  Samm. 
Warren,  No.  1019,  pi.  xxiii;  Cat.  American  Artist  and  well-known  Amateur,  pi.  ii,  50  (S.  W.  & 
H.,  London);  J.  I.  N.  1902,  33d. 

b.  18mm.  8.45  gr.  London ; I-/S.  Plate  III,  15 

Wroth,  Num.  Chron . 1893,  p.  9,  pi.  i,  16;  Jour.  Hell.  Studies,  1897,  p.  85,  pi.  ii,  13;  J.  I. 

N.  1902,  33a,  pi.  iii,  18. 

c.  20mm.  8.44  gr.  Boston  (Greenwell-Warren) ; I-/3.  Plate  III,  16 

Kegling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1018,  pi.  xxiii. 

d.  18mm.  8.38  gr.  (Formerly  Pozzi) ; I-/3. 

Cat.  Monn.  gr.  ant..  No.  2230,  pi.  Ixvii  (Naville  et  Cie.,  Geneva,  1920). 

e.  18mm.  8.46  gr.  Paris  (Old  Coll.) ; II-7.  Plate  III,  17 

Babelon,  Traits  II^,  No.  2562,  pi.  clxxii,  6;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  33b,  pi.  iii,  19. 

f.  17mm.  8.45  gr.  Jameson,  Paris  (formerly  Durufle)  ; Plate  III,  18 

Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1434,  pi.  Ixxiii  (Paris,  1913);  Ann.  de  la  Num.  fran^.,  XIV,  1890,  Procbs- 

Verbeaux,  p.  21. 

g.  17mm.  8.35  gr.  (Formerly  Fiirst  Ch.  v.  A.)  ; II-7. 

Cat.  Gr.  Miinzen,  No.  .540,  pi.  xvi  (Egger,  Vienna,  Jan.  1908). 

h.  18mm.  8.40  gr.  Berlin  (Lbbbecke);  II-7.  Plate  III,  14 

1 This  Aktaion  stater  probably  was  not  from  the  Avola  (near  Syracuse)  hoard  as  M.  Hoff- 
man conjectured  at  the  meeting  of  the  Soc.  Prang,  de  Num.,  when  M.  Durufld  presented  the  coin 
before  this  body,  for  this  type  was  not  mentioned  by  either  of  the  two  collectors  who  saw  the  coins 
in  this  hoard  (see  the  reports  of  Lbhbecke  and  Greenwell  in  the  discussion  of  hoards  preceding  the 
Catalogue  of  Types).  It  was  more  probably  from  the  Troad  hoard  which  was  found  shortly  be- 
fore the  Avola  hoard. 


The  Gold  Statees  oe  Lampsakos 


31 


From  the  Asia  Minor  Find.  Lobbecke,  Zeit.  f.  Num.  1890,  pp.  8,  178,  pi.  12;  Von  Sallet 
and  Regiin-g,  Die  Antiken  Miinzen,  pi.  33;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  33c,  pi.  iii,  20. 

a-Ji,  two  obverse  dies  • — a-d ; e~A,  identical ; three  reverse  dies,  h-d ; e-h,  identical. 

34  Head  of  Hekate  L,  hair  rolled  at  back  and  gathered  up  into  a knot  on  top  of 
the  head  ; she  wears  laurel  wreath,  ear-ring  with  single  pendant,  and  necklace ; behind 
neck,  a flaming  torch. 

Similar. 

a.  18mm.  8.40  gr.  Boston  (Greenweli-Warren) ; I-a.  Plate  III,  19 

From  the  Asia  Minor  Find.  Greeawell,  Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  26,  pi.  iii,  13;  Regling, 
Samm.  Warren,  JS"©.  1012,  pi.  xxiii;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  20a. 

h.  18mm.  8.39  gr.  London  (formerly  Sir  H.  Weber^);  I-a.  Plate  III,  20 
Babeion,  Traitd  II®,  E’o.  2549,  pi.  clxxi,  16;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  20b,  pi.  ii,  17. 
a and  h,  same  obverse  and  reverse  dies. 

35  Head  of  Dionysos  L,  bearded,  wearing  ivy  wreath  with  bunches  of  ivy  berries 
over  the  forehead. 

Similar. 

a.  17mm.  8.36  gr.  Boston  (Greenwell-Warren) ; unique.  Plate  III,  21 

Greenwell,  Fum.  Chron.  1893,  p.  85,  pi.  vii,  8;  Eegling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1014,  pi.  xxiii; 
J.  I.  N.  1902,  24b,  pi.  iii,  2. 

36  Youthful  head  L,  beardless,  hair  short, 
ly  Similar. 

a.  17mm.  8.40  gr.  Paris  (Old  Coll.) ; unique..  Plate  III,  22 

Sestini,  Stateri  Antichi,  p.  64,  No.  11,  pi.  vi,  9;  Mionnet,  Sup.  V.,  p.  371,  No.  568,  pi.  Ixxv, 
3;  Brandis,  op.  cit.,  p.  410;  Six,  Num.  Chron.  1888,  p.  Ill,  No.  20;  Babeion,  Traits  II^,  No.  2564, 
pL  clxxii,  8;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  35a,  pi.  iii,  22. 

37  Head  of  Zeus  Ammon,  bearded,  facing,  slightly  to  L,  -wearing  ram’s  horns. 

BT  Similar. 

a.  17mm.  8.80  gr.  Paris  (de  Luynes) ; unique.  Plate  III,  23 

Sestini,  Lett,  e Diss.  IV  (Livorno,  1779),  p.  69  (“ex.  Mus.  Ainslie”),  and  Stateri  Antichi, 
p.  63,  No.  6;  Miilingen,  Anc.  Coins,  p.  69,  No.  2,  pi.  v,  8,  “ ex.  Lord  North-wdck  ” ; Mionnet, 
Sup,  V,  p.  371,  No.  657;  Cat.  Northwick,  No.  963  (S.  & W.,  Dec.  1859);  Brandis,  op.  cit.,]),  410; 
Babeion,  Traitd  IP,  No.  2639,  pi.  clxxi,  5;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  11a,  pi.  i,  20. 

38  Head  of  youthful  Dionysos,  i.  with  long  hair  wreathed  with  ivy,  and  a bunch 
of  ivy  berries  over  the  forehead.^  Fig.  15. 


Fig.  15 


1 The  Weber  coin  is  the  one  figured  in  J.  I.  N.  1902,  pi.  ii,  17,  not  the  example  in  the  Boston 

Museum,  formerly  Green-well- Warren. 

® This  subject  is  new  in  the  series,  although  Maenad  and  Dionysos  heads  are  found  in  each 

of  the  distinctive  styles  of  the  coinage.  The  absence  of  ear-ring  and  necklace  (what  might  appear 
to  be  a beaded  necklace  on  the  truncation  of  the  neck  is  really  the  curling  end  of  the  front  hair), 


32 


The  American  J ouenae  of  Numismatics 


57  Similar. 

a.  18mm.  8.41  gr.  Jameson,  Paris ; unique. 

From  the  Avierino  collection  (?),  said  to  have  been  found  in  Egypt. 

39  Head  of  the  elder  Kabeiros  1.,  bearded ; wearing  laureate  pilos. 

Similar. 

a.  17mm.  8.37  gr.  London  (Payne-Knight) ; I-a.  Plate  III,  24 

Sestini.  Lett,  e Diss.  IV  (Livorno,  1779),  p.  69,  pi.  i,  2,  and  Stateri  Antichi,  p.  62,  No.  4, 

pi.  vi,  3;  Mionnet,  Sup.  V,  p.  369,  No.  543;  Payne-Knight,  Nummi  Veteres,  p.  130,  No.  2;  Leake, 
Num.  Hell.  (As.  Hr.),  p.  72;  Brandis,  op.  cit.,  p.  410;  Head,  Guide,  p.  37,  pi.  xviii,  17,  and  Hist. 
Num.,  p.  530,  fig.  280;  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  No.  25,  pi.  xix,  3;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  21c,  pi.  ii,  20. 

b.  20mm.  8.38  gr.  Boston  (Greenwell-Warren) ; II-/3.  Plate  III,  25 

From  Asia  Minor  Find  (?),  cf.  Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  26;  Kegling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1016, 

pi.  xxiii;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  21a,  pi.  ii,  18. 

c.  17 mm.  8.33  gr.  Paris  (Waddington)  ; II-7.  Plate  III,  26 

Babelon,  Rev.  Num.  1897,  p.  319,  No.  866,  pi.  vii,  10==Inv.  Wadd.,  pi.  ii,  10,  and  Traitd 

IP,  No.  2550,  pi.  clxxi,  17;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  21b,  pi.  ii,  19. 

d.  19mm.  8.47  gr.  New  York,  Metropolitan  Mus.  (Ward)  ; II-7.  Plate  III,  27 

From  Asia  Minor  Find  (?),  cf.  Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  26;  Hill,  Cat.  Ward,  No.  612,  pi.  xv; 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  21d. 

e.  18mm.  8.45  gr.  London  (formerly  Sir  H.  Weber)  ; II-7.  Plate  III,  28 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  21e. 

a-~e,  two  different  obverse  dies — b-e,  identical ; and  three  reverse  dies,  c-e,  identical.^ 

40  Head  of  Athena  1.,  wearing  crested  Athenian  helmet  ornamented  with  three 
olive  leaves  and  scroll,  round  ear-ring,  and  necklace. 

B7  Similar. 

a.  18mm.  8.40  gr.  Boston  (Greenwell-Warren) ; unique.^  Plate  III,  29 

Greenwell,  Num.  Chron.  1893,  p.  85,  pi.  vii,  9;  Eegling,  Samm.  Warren,  No.  1009,  pi.  xxiii; 
Babelon,  Traitd  II^,  No.  2542,  pi.  clxxi,  8;  Gardner,  Gold  Coinage  of  Asia,  Proc.  of  Brit.  Acad- 
emy, 1908,  pi.  ii,  10;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  14a,  pi.  ii,  5. 

41  Head  of  Aphrodite  (?)  1.,  wearing  wreath  of  lotus  (?),  sphendone,  and  ear- 
ring with  single  pendant. 

B7  Similar. 

a.  17mm.  8.42  gr.  London ; I-a.  Plate  III,  30 

Wroth,  B.  M.  C.  Mysia,  No.  30,  pi.  xix,  8;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  19c. 

b.  18mm.  8.41  gr.  Paris  (Waddington);  I-a.  Plate  III,  31 

Babelon,  Rev.  Num.  1897,  p.  318,  No.  864,  pi.  vii,  8 = Inv.  Wadd.,  pi.  ii,  8;  J.  I.  N.  1902, 

19e,  pi.  ii,  16. 

e.  17mm.  8.39  gr.  Paris  (de  Luynes)  ; I-a. 

Babelon,  Traitd  II^,  No.  2548,  pi.  clxxi,  5;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  19d,  pi.  ii,  ,15. 

and  the  strength  of  the  features  are  in  favor  of  considering  the  head  as  the  youthful  and  more 
effeminate  Dionysos,  rather  than  a Maenad. 

1 For  the  obverses,  this  is  certain  ; the  reverses  are  too  indistinct  to  be  certain,  but  c,  d and  e 
appear  to  be  identical. 

^ A second  example  has  recently  been  seen  in  the  market  at  Constantinople. 


The  Gold  Stateks  of  Lampsakos 


33 


d.  18mm.  8.40  gr.  Jameson,  Paris ; I-/3.  Plate  III,  32 

Cat.  O’Hagan,  No.  536,  pi.  ix  (S.  W.  & H.,  London,  May,  1908);  Cat.  Jameson,  No.  1445, 

pi.  Ixiii  (Paris,  1913). 

e.  18mm.  8.45  gr.  Berlin  (Imhoof-Blumer) ; II-/3.  Plate  III,  33 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  19a,  pi.  ii,  13. 

/.  17mm.  8.41  gr.  Boston  (Perkins) ; II-/3. 

Cat.  of  Perkins  Coll.,  pi.  v,  430;  J.  I.  N.  1902,  19f. 

g.  18mm.  8.41  gr.  Bement,  Philadelphia  (formerly  Sir  H.  Weber,  London)  ; 

II-/3.  Plate  III,  34 

J.  I.  N.  1902,  19g;  Cat.  C.  S.  Bement  Coll.,  pi.  vii,  257  (New  York,  1921). 

h.  18mm.  8.45  gr.  McClean,  Cambridge  (formerly  Greenwell- Warren)  ; II-/S. 

Plate  III,  35 

From  the  Asia  Minor  Find.  Greenwell,  Num.  Chron.  1890,  p.  27,  pi.  iii,  15;  Kegling,  Samm. 
Warren,  No.  1007,  pi.  xxiii;  Cat.  Well-Known  Amateur  (Warren),  No.  98,  pi.  iii  (S.  W.  & H., 
London,  May,  1905);  J.  I.  N.  1902,  19b,  pi.  ii,  14. 

a-A,  two  different  obverse  dies,  a-d,  e-h,  identical ; two  different  reverse  dies,  a-c, 
d-h,  identical. 


THE  DIES  AND  THEIR  SEQUENCE 

As  remarked  above  under  the  description  of  Type  2,  there  is  only 
one  case  of  connecting  reverse  dies  between  the  changing  obverses.  But  as 
has  been  shown  in  discussing  the  sequence  of  types,  we  find  reverses  so  nearly 
identical  that  they  serve  about  as  well  for  determining  the  general  sequence 
of  the  series  as  though  they  were  identical.  There  are  a number  of  unique 
types  and  several  which  are  represented  by  only  two  examples,  and  these 
may  as  well  be  mentioned  first,  and  then  we  may  turn  our  attention  to  the 
sequence  of  examples  of  the  same  type  where  there  are  more  than  two 
examples  known.  The  unique  staters  are  the  following:  Perseus  head, 
PI.  I,  5;  Thetis  on  dolphin,  PI.  I,  8;  Persian  archer,  PI.  I,  9;  Nike  sacrificing 
ram,  PL  I,  10;  Dionysos  head  (small  size  type  and  flan),  PI.  I,  17;  Pan  head, 
PI.  I,  21;  Herakles  head,  PI.  I,  29;  Athena  head  facing,  PI.  II,  14;  Nike 
erecting  trophy,  PI.  II,  27 ; Hera  head,  PI.  II,  30;  head  of  Herakles  as 
Omphale,  PI.  Ill,  12;  head  of  a female  satyr,  PI.  Ill,  13;  Dionysos  head 
(large  size  type  and  flan),  PI.  Ill,  21;  young  male  head,  PI.  Ill,  22;  Zeus 
Ammon  head,  PI.  Ill,  23;  head  of  youthful  Dionysos,  fig.  15. 

Those  types  of  which  there  are  only  two  examples  known  are : Herakles 
and  serpents,  PI.  I,  1,  2;  Helle  on  ram,  PI.  I,  3,  4;  Apollo  seated,  PL  I,  6,  7 ; 
Demeter  head  r.,  PL  I,  15,  16;  Apollo  head,  PL  I,  27,  28;  Demeter  head 
veiled  L,  PL  I,  30,  31 ; Dionysos  head  (medium  size  type  and  flan),  PL  II, 
18,  19;  Helios  head,  PL  II,  20,  21;  Ge  rising  from  earth,  PL  II,  25,  26; 
Lampsake  (?)  head;  PL  II,  28,  29;  Hekate  head,  PL  III,  19,  20;  Athena  head 


34 


The  Amekicax  Jouknal  oe  Numismatics 


copied  from  the  Athenian  coins,  PI.  Ill,  29 d When  dealing  with  types 
known  from  two  examples  only,  there  is  naturally  very  little  ground  on 
which  to  base  inferences  as  to  the  order  of  issue  of  the  different  examples. 
Still  in  some  cases  there  is  a difference  in  style  when  the  dies  are  markedly 
different,  which  gives  us  a clue  to  the  order  of  issue.  For  example,  in  the 
first  instance,  that  of  Herakles  strangling  the  serpents,  the  Paris  coin,  PI. 
I,  2,  has  the  connecting  reverse  die  with  the  Helle  on  ram  type,  PL  I,  3, 
and  that  fact  settles  the  order  of  the  two  obverse  dies  of  Type  1.  The 
reverse  of  the  Boston  example,  PI.  I,  1,  has  an  earlier  appearance  in  itself. 
The  obverses  of  Helle  on  the  ram  (with  identical  reverse)  are  very  close 
indeed.  On  the  Berlin  coin,  PI.  I,  3,  Helle  is  bending  over  further  than  on 
the  Paris  example,  PI.  1, 4.  The  two  examples  of  Apollo  seated  are  also  too 
similar  in  style  to  allow  any  inference  as  to  their  order,  and  the  reverses 
are  nearly  identical.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Demeter  head  r.,  PL  I, 
15,  16;  but  the  reverse  of  PL  I,  16,  is  closer  to  that  of  Type  10,  Dionysos 
head,  PL  I,  17,  and  hence  is  placed  second.  The  Apollo  heads,  PL  I,  27,  28, 
are  of  just  slightly  different  obverse  and  reverse  dies;  the  Jameson  example, 
PL  I,  28,  may  be  more  developed,  and  the  reverse  of  the  Munich  coin,  PL  I, 
27,  is  very  closely  allied  with  the  preceding  Hermes  head,  PL  I,  26.  The 
two  coins  with  a Demeter  head  (veiled) , PL  I,  30,  31,  are  almost  alike  on 
the  obverse;  the  reverse  of  the  Paris  coin  is  close  to  that  of  the  Herakles 
head  type  placed  just  before  it.  This  latter  type  (unique)  seems  to  fit 
well  in  this  position,  the  wings  of  the  Pegasos  having  the  ladder  pattern 
first  developed  under  the  Hermes  head  type,  and  the  head  of  Pegasos  being 
larger  than  on  the  types  placed  before  it,  as  it  is  on  those  that  follow.  If  the 
Herakles  head  is  correctly  placed  in  the  sequence  of  types,  the  Paris  example 
of  Demeter  veiled  belongs  just  following.  The  two  Dionysos  heads,  PL  II, 
18,  19,  are  from  the  same  pair  of  dies.  The  reverse  die  is  of  individual 
style,  but  as  the  obverse  bears  a head  of  medium  size,  and  as  the  reverse 
though  different,  still  has  a general  resemblance  to  those  of  the  preceding 
and  following  types  with  rather  disproportioned  head  on  the  Pegasos,  and 
larger  wing,  the  type  is  placed  here.  The  two  Helios  head  types,  PL  II, 
20,  21,  are  of  identical  reverse  dies,  but  the  obverses  seem  to  be  two  different 
dies  of  which  the  Jameson  coin,  PL  II,  20,  seems  earlier.  The  Ge  types, 
PL  II,  25,  26,  are  from  the  same  dies;  the  reverse  is  peculiar  in  that  the 
truncation  of  the  Pegasos  has  the  lower  corner  rounded  off.  The  coins 
of  the  Lampsake(?)  head  type,  PL  II,  28,  29,  are  from  a single  pair  of  dies. 
The  reverse  die  is  crude  by  comparison  with  the  preceding  ones,  in  that  it 
is  too  large  for  the  flan,  and  awkward  in  design.  It  seems  certainly  earlier 

* The  second  example  was  not  seen  by  the  writer,  and  hence  cannot  be  considered  here. 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


35 


than  the  fine  dies  of  the  following  Zeus  head  type.  There  are  other  examples 
of  a badly  proportioned  Pegasos  on  coins  of  the  Middle  period,  e.g.,  Dionysos 
and  Helios  types,  PI.  II,  18-21.  The  Hekate  head  staters,  PI.  Ill,  19,  20, 
are  from  the  same  dies.  The  obverse  is  of  very  fine  style  resembling  closely 
the  Aktaion  head,  and  the  reverse  has  the  same  declining  style  that  first 
makes  its  appearance  in  the  Herakles  as  Omphale,  PI.  Ill,  12,  and  following 
staters,  and  which  according  to  our  chronological  scheme,  sets  in  just  after 
the  Zeus  and  Nike  types  of  this  same  plate. 

The  types  represented  by  three  or  more  examples  afford  an  opportunity 
for  an  arrangement  of  the  different  dies  in  order.  In  the  group  of  four 
coins  with  head  of  a Satyr  facing,  PI.  I,  11-14,  the  last  three  have  a common 
die.  The  first  coin,  PI.  I,  11,  has  a reverse  die  which  is  more  like  that  of  the 
earlier  types ; compare  PI.  I,  10  for  example.  Hence  the  obverse  die  I was 
probably  made  before  II.  The  Maenad  heads  of  Type  10,  PI.  I,  18-20, 
are  from  different  obverse  dies,  but  the  reverse  dies  of  the  second  and  third 
examples  are  identical.  As  the  obverse  die  of  the  first  coin  is  much  less 
refined  (note  the  heavy  ear-ring  and  more  animal  expression  of  the  mouth 
and  eye,  and  compare  the  Dionysos  type  just  preceding),  and  the  reverse 
also  is  less  advanced  than  those  of  the  other  two  coins,  it  may  be  presumed 
to  be  the  earliest.  Between  the  other  two  coins.  Nos.  19  and  20  of  PI.  I, 
there  is  little  to  choose,  except  that  No.  19  is  closer  to  No.  18.  The  Hermes 
head  staters,  PI.  I,  22-26,  are  of  different  obverse  dies  and  their  order  is 
determined  chiefly  by  the  style  of  the  reverses.  The  reverses  of  the  first 
two.  Nos.  22,  23  on  the  plate,  are  more  primitive  looking  than  the  following. 
The  reverses  of  Nos.  24  and  25  are  identical.  The  sequence  of  style  seems 
very  clearly  to  be  in  accordance  with  our  arrangement  on  the  plate.  Of 
course  No.  23  may  have  come  before  No.  22,  but  No.  26  is  surely  the  latest 
of^he  five  staters  as  its  reverse  is  barely  distinguishable  from  that  of  the 
following  Apollo  type,  PI.  I,  27.  The  staters  bearing  the  head  of  a Maenad 
with  flying  locks,  rank  second  in  the  list  of  types  with  most  numerous 
examples  of  which  the  Zeus  with  scepter.  Type  29,  is  the  first.  These  two 
types,  according  to  the  extant  specimens,  are  those  of  which  there  were 
the  largest  issues ; seventeen  specimens  of  the  Maenad  type  and  thirty  of 
the  Zeus  type  being  known.  The  obverse  dies  of  the  Maenad  type  number 
nine,  and  the  reverse  dies,  ten.^ 

■■  While  the  reverse  dies  of  the  seventeen  known  specimens  number  ten,  only  one  more  than  the  total 
number  of  obverse  dies  known,  yet  an  examination  of  their  coupling  proves  the  oft  repeated  observation 
that  more  reverses  were  needed  in  striking  than  obverses,  as  a general  rule.  For  obverse  die  II  is  combined 
with  two  reverses  o and  die  III  with  y and  5.  It  is  true  that  reverse  die  S is  found  with  III,  IV,  V 
and  VI,  but  it  was  not  in  good  condition  at  any  time,  having  already  cracked  before  being  used  with  III. 
When  it  was  used  in  ccmbination  with  V,  the  crack  was  very  bad,  and  a new  reverse  die  e was  made  to 


36 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


When  we  compare  the  Boston  and  London  examples  PI.  I,  32,  33, 
with  the  Paris  coins  PI.  II,  3,  4 (same  dies) , the  line  of  development  is  seen 
to  be  parallel  to  that  of  the  Maenad  heads  of  Type  11,  PI.  I,  18-20,  that  is, 
from  a head  with  more  animal  character  in  the  expression  to  a more  human- 
ized head.  The  head  on  the  Paris  coins  is  the  finest  of  all  the  coins  with 
this  head,  and  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  Maenad  heads  on  Greek  coins. 
The  reverses  of  these  staters  have  dies  very  similar  to  those  of  the  Athena 
and  Maenad  heads,  placed  after  them  on  the  plate.  The  Glasgow  specimen, 
PI.  II,  2,  approaches  the  Paris  coins  most  nearly  in  the  style  of  both  obverse 
and  reverse.  The  coins  intervening  between  the  earliest,  PI.  I,  32,  and 
latest,  PL  II,  2-4,  all  appear  to  show  a line  of  ascending  development  which 
reaches  its  culmination  in  the  fine  style  of  the  coins,  PI.  II,  2-4.  The 
Athena  head  staters  PL  II,  5-8,  have  different  obverse  dies,  and  two  reverse 
dies.  Nos.  5 and  6,  and  Nos.  7 and  8 of  PL  II,  identical.  Their  sequence 
is  probably  as  here  given  because  of  the  affinity  of  the  reverse  die  of  Nos. 
5 and  6 for  that  of  the  latest  Maenad  head,  PL  II,  4;  and  that  of  No.  8 for 
the  die  of  the  Maenad  with  hair  in  a saccos,  PL  II,  9,  which  it  greatly  resem- 
bles. This  latter  Maenad  type  appears  on  dies  hard  to  distinguish  from 
one  another. 

The  order  of  issue  of  the  three  satrapal  heads,  PL  II,  15-17,  is  likewise 
determined  by  the  reverse  dies,  for  No.  15  has  a die  of  closely  similar  style 
to  the  type  of  Athena  facing,  PL  II,  14,  after  which  it  is  placed,  and  the  dies 
of  Nos.  16  and  17  are  developments  of  the  die  of  No.  15,  and  are  rather  like 
the  die  of  Nos.  18  and  19  of  this  plate.  Furthermore  the  first  obverse  die. 
No.  15,  has  more  of  the  typical,  and  the  two  following  obverses.  Nos.  16 
and  17,  look  more  like  real  portraits.  The  dies  of  Type  24,  PL  II,  22-24, 
do  not  afford  ,any  data  for  placing  them  satisfactorily  in  a series.  The 
reverse  die  yS  bears  a great  deal  of  resemblance  to  the  reverse  die  of  Type  .26. 
Hence  it  might  be  the  last  of  the  four  reverse  dies  of  Type  24.  But  Type  26, 
Nike  and  trophy,  might  be  placed  just  before  Type  24,  and  24d  be  the  first  of 
the  Zeus  heads.  The  heads  themselves  are  all  on  about  the  same  level  of 
style,  though  the  coin  on  PL  II,  24,  may  perhaps  seem  earlier  than  the  others. 

The  Zeus  with  scepter.  Type  29,  PL  II,  31 — PL  III,  7,  has  the  most 
numerous  examples  in  the  whole  coinage  — thirty  or  more ; and  the  order 
of  the  various  obverse  dies  which  are  five  in  number  is  not  difficult  to  deter- 
mine. This  arises  from  the  fact  that  we  have  among  the  obverses  one  die 


go  with  V.  The  old  die  5 was,  however,  used  again  with  a new  obverse  VI.  With  VI  there  were  used 
reverse  dies  S,  e,  s,  f,  four  to  one  obverse.  Thus,  although  in  this  small  group  of  coins  of  the  same 
type,  the  total  number  of  reverses  is  not  greatly  in  excess  of  the  total  number  of  obverses,  the  fact  that  the 
reverse  dies  wore  out  more  quickly  is  evident. 


The  Gold  Statees  of  Lampsakos 


87 


which  is  a most  perfect  die,  artistically  one  of  the  finest  representations  of 
a Zeus  head  on  this  scale  among  Greek  coins,  and  four  others  which  do  not 
approach  it  in  perfection  of  style.  Now,  that  the  evolution  of  the  obverse 
types  is  as  here  arranged,  from  the  most  delicately  beautiful  style  of  die  I in  a 
descending  scale  to  the  hard  and  dry  style  of  die  IV, ^ is  apparent  from  the 
very  obviously  declining  tendency  in  the  development  of  the  reverses. 
The  Pegasos  of  these  Zeus  staters  has  now  reached  the  point  of  highest 
artistic  and  technical  perfection,  all  parts  of  the  body  being  in  harmonious 
proportion.  Note  the  size  of  the  horse’s  head,  the  drawing  of  the  forelegs 
and  the  fine  rendering  of  the  minute  details  of  the  wings  of  reverse  dies  a 
and  /3.  The  dies  7 — e show  a progressive  decline  of  art.  There  is  the 
same  loss  of  expression  and  carelessness  in  details  (note  the  horse’s  mane) 
that  from  now  on  begins  to  be  apparent  in  the  series  at  large.  Again  the 
difference  in  style  observable  in  obverse  dies  I-II  as  compared  with  the 
succeeding  dies  is  of  a kind  which  is  clearly  due  to  copying.  Note  the 
finesse  of  the  rendering  of  the  lock  of  hair  which  falls  loose  from  the  occiput 
of  the  head  in  dies  I,  II,  and  the  less  skilful  copying  of  this  lock  in  dies 
III,  IV.  Observe  also  how  the  back  of  the  hair  sags  down  in  dies  III,  IV, 
and  the  less  profound  expression  of  the  eye.^ 

The  dies  of  the  Nike  head.  Type  30,  PI.  Ill,  8-11,  however,  do  not 
show  any  signs  of  progressive  decline  due  to  copying  although  two  of  them 
are  distinctly  inferior  to  the  third,  PI.  Ill,  10,  11.  In  this  case  the  evolution 
of  the  obverse  dies  seems  to  be  in  an  ascending  scale  up  to  the  remarkably 
fine  die,  PI.  Ill,  10,  11.  The  other  dies  seem  to  be  leading  up  to  this  one, 
for  there  are  no  details  repeated  in  the  manner  of  the  careless  copyist. 
Besides  these  reasons,  there  is  also  the  fact  that  the  style  of  Type  31,  Herakles 
as  Omphale,  PI.  Ill,  12,  is  as  close  as  could  be  possible  to  the  Nike  head  of 
die  III.  The  similar  rendering  of  the  turned-up  hair  and  the  deep-set  eye, 
and  of  the  hair  over  the  forehead  — in  short,  the  whole  treatment  of  the 
hair — are  the  points  to  be  noticed.  The  Pegasos  of  this  Herakles  type  is  of 
a style  which  is  decidedly  inferior  to  those  of  the  preceding  Hera,  Zeus  and 
Nike  types.  From  now  on  the  horse  is  never  engraved  in  the  fine  style 
which  is  characteristic  of  our  middle  and  early  third  groups.  The  “ladder” 

* We  omit  from  our  discussion  here  die  V,  the  Petrograd  specimen,  PL  III,  7,  which  is  peculiar  and 
unlike  the  other  dies;  its  reverse,  too,  is  also  quite  different  from  the  other  reverse  dies. 

* As  in  the  case  of  the  Maenad  head.  Type  17,  the  disparity  in  the  number  of  obverse  and  reverse 
dies  is  not  as  great  as  might  be  expected.  But  the  coupling  of  the  dies  gives  the  true  answer  to  the  question 
of  the  relative  durability  of  obverse  and  reverse  dies.  For  die  I was  coupled  with  five  reverses  a — e,  and 
there  are  eighteen  examples  of  staters  bearing  this  obverse  die  — more  than  half  of  the  known  specimens 
of  the  Zeus  with  scepter  type,  which  of  course  explains  why  so  many  reverse  dies  coupled  with  I are  known. 
With  a suflBciently  large  number  of  examples  of  a given  obverse  die,  there  will  regularly  be  found  two  or 
more  reverses  which  were  used  in  combination  with  it. 


38 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


pattern  is  dropped  altogether  after  this  Herakles  type;  there  is  a reversion 
to  the  earliest  style  of  our  first  period ; careless  striking,  and  lack  of  expression 
in  the  horse’s  head  are  the  rule.  The  obverse  dies  of  the  Aktaion  head, 
PL  III,  14-18,  are  very  similar  in  character;  in  fact,  they  are  scarcely  to 
be  separated  as  varying  dies,  the  sole  difference  lying  in  the  treatment  of 
the  eye  — the  Berlin  stater,  No.  14,  may  be  the  same  die  as  Nos.  17  and  18. 
If  it  is  die  II,  as  seems  probable,  though  the  cast  is  so  poor  as  to  make  cer- 
tainty impossible,  then  there  are  two  obverse  dies,  of  which  the  one  desig- 
nated I is  the  finer.  This  die  seems  likely  to  be  the  first  one  cut,  from  the 
fact  that  it  is  coupled  with  reverse  die  a,  an  unquestionably  finer  die  than 
/3  or  7,  and  probably  the  earliest,  since  the  difference  in  style  can  only  be 
described  as  a decline. 

The  Kabeiros  head  stater,  PI.  Ill,  24-28,  has  two  obverse  dies  only, 
and  of  these.  No.  24  is  probably  earlier;  the  reverse  of  this  stater  is  of  better 
style  than  those  of  the  other  coins  of  this  type.  The  last  type.  Aphrodite  (?) 
head,  PI.  Ill,  30-35,  has  but  two  obverse  dies  I and  II,  and  reverse  dies  a 
and  /3.  The  connecting  link  which  occurs  in  the  middle  of  the  series. 
No.  32,  dies  I— /3,  indicates  the  sequence  of  the  issues  as  die  yS  is  most 
plainly  more  debased  than  a.  It  is  the  last  of  the  series  and  is  vastly 
inferior  to  the  fine  dies  of  the  Zeus  and  Nike  types,  and  in  fact  to  any  of 
the  preceding  reverse  dies. 

CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  STATERS 

The  generally  accepted  date  for  the  beginning  of  the  issue  of  Lampsakene 
gold  staters  is  c.  394  b.c.  According  to  style,  the  staters  do  undoubtedly 
begin  in  the  early  part  of  the  Fourth  Century  b.c.  and  they  continue  down 
to  the  middle  or  third  quarter  of  this  century.  The  reason  for  dating  the 
commencement  of  the  issues  c.  394  b.c.  is  that  the  stater  universally  admitted 
to  be  the  earliest  type  PL  I,  1,  2,  Herakles  strangling  the  serpents,  is  copied 
from  the  type  of  the  so-called  Alliance  Coinage  of  Asia  Minor  which  was 
assigned  by  Waddington  (Rev.  Num.  1863,  p.  223)  to  this  date.  This 
coinage  issued  by  Rhodes,  Ephesos,  Knidos,  lasos  and  Samos  bears  a 
common  obverse  type,  the  infant  Herakles  strangling  two  serpents,  accom- 
panied by  the  inscription  ^YN,  the  first  letters  of  ^YNMAXIA,  crwfiaxia, 
“Alliance,”  and  varying  reverse  badges  of  the  respective  mints,  PL  IV,  8, 
Samos;  9,  Ephesos;  10,  Knidos.  The  coins  are  silver  tri drachms  of  Rhodian 
weight. 

Waddington  formulated  the  interesting  theory  that  the  Symmachia 
was  a political  alliance  made  by  certain  powerful  coast  towns,  Ionian  and 


The  Gold  Staters  op  Lampsakos 


39 


Carian,  directly  after  the  Athenian  general,  Konon,  had  liberated  these 
towns  from  Spartan  control  through  his  naval  victory  off  Knidos,  394  b.c. 
This  league  was  of  an  ephemeral  nature  because  in  391,  as  Xenophon  informs 
us  (Hellenica,  IV,  8;  17,  22,  23),  Ephesos,  Samos  and  Knidos  went  over 
again  to  Sparta.  It  is  not  mentioned  by  ancient  historians,  but  since 
Waddington  wrote,  a new  member  of  the  supposed  anti-Spartan  Symmachia 
has  become  known  through  the  discovery  of  the  unique  tridrachm  of 
Byzantion  published  by  Dr.  Regling  (Zeit.  f.  Num.  1905,  p.  207f.)  This 
coin.  Dr.  Regling  argues,  cannot  have  been  struck  before  389  b.c.,  for 
Byzantion  was  until  that  year  still  under  the  oligarchical  rule  of  Sparta, 
and  only  when  democracy  was  re-established  there,  after  Thrasyboulos’ 
expedition  in  389,  would  the  Alliance  type  which  is  clearly  emblematic  of 
political  liberty,  be  appropriate.’  One  is  forced  then  to  assume  that 
Byzantion  came  into  the  confederation  five  years  after  its  formation  in 
389  B.C.,  which  would  be  quite  extraordinary  in  view  of  the  defection  of 
three  out  of  the  five  original  members,  Ephesos,  Samos  and  Knidos,  which, 
according  to  Xenophon,  become  partisans  of  Sparta  in  391  b.c.  The 
historians  Beloch^  and  Meyer^  have  always  preferred  the  date  387  b.c.  for 
the  issue  of  the  Alliance  coins  with  5YN  and  the  Herakles  and  serpents 
type,^  as  they  do  not  accept  the  theory  of  an  anti-Spartan  movement  on 
the  part  of  these  towns  of  Asia  Minor  as  a consequence  of  the  battle  of 
Knidos.  This  date  is  the  year  of  the  Peace  of  Antalkidas,  when  all  of  the 
Greek  cities,  except  Klazomenai,  were  surrendered  unconditionally  to 
Artaxerxes  II  Mnemon,  King  of  Persia.  The  existence  of  the  coin  of 
Byzantion,  at  any  rate,  seerps  to  make  Waddington’s  theory  of  an  anti- 
Spartan  confederation  immediately  after  the  battle  of  Knidos  no  longer 
tenable. 

Whatever  the  opinion  of  historians  may  ultimately  be  in  regard  to 
the  date  of  the  Alliance  issues,  the  Lampsakene  stater  which  borrowed  the 
Alliance  type  cannot  be  placed  any  earlier  than  389  b.c.  for  the  reason  that 
it  is  copied  with  utmost  fidelity  of  detail  from  the  Byzantian  tridrachm. 
The  axis  of  inclination  of  the  kneeling  Herakles,  the  coils  of  the  serpents, 
position  of  the  arms,  all  indicate  that  the  Byzantian  coin  served  as  a model 

1 A singular  coincidence  is  the  choice  of  Herakles  as  infant,  strangling  serpents,  for  the  reverse  of  the 
Libertas  Americana  Medal,  1791,  designed  by  Benjamin  Franklin,  to  represent  the  victories  of  the  infant 
Republic  of  the  United  States  at  Yorktown  and  Saratoga. 

* Gr.  Gesch.,  2nd  ed.,  1922,  III,  p.  95.  ’ Gesch.  des  Alterthums,  V,  p.  308,  310. 

* Holm,  History  of  Greece,  III,  ch.  hi,  note  11,  discusses  Waddington’s  theory  at  length,  concluding 
that  the  cities  of  Asia  Minor  would  not  be  in  a position  to  form  a defensive  league  after  the  King’s  peace, 
and  further  suggests  that  if  a later  date  were  sought,  we  might  assume  the  time  of  the  Second  Athenian 
Confederacy,  377,  which  was  anti-Spartan.  He  was,  of  course,  not  cognizant  of  the  Byzantian  tridrachm 
with  5YN.  Bury,  History  of  Greece,  p.  553,  accepts  the  date  387  b.c. 


40 


The  American  Journal  op  Numismatics 


for  the  Lampsakene  die-engraver.  Moreover,  this  coin  would  most  naturally 
be  the  type  which  was  copied  at  Lampsakos. 

The  commencement  of  the  issue  of  gold  staters  at  this  period,  c.  387  b.c., 
rather  upsets  the  theory  that  the  Persian  king  reserved  for  himself  the 
right  to  issue  gold  coin.  This  question  on  which  numismatists  today  are 
divided  is  one  which  is  not  to  be  decided  by  any  reference  to  statements  in 
ancient  historians,  for  we  have  no  evidence  of  this  sort  for  or  against  it. 
M.  Babelon  (Traite  II,^  Introd.)  holds  that  the  Persian  kings  never  inter- 
fered in  the  slightest  degree  with  the  issuing  of  coins  by  the  subject  Greek* 
cities.  Mr.  Gardner  maintains  the  theory  that  the  exclusive  right  to  issue 
gold  was  jealously  guarded  by  the  Persian  kings,  and  that  all  gold  coinages 
struck  by  Greek  cities  under  Persian  rule  are  instances  of  special  privilege. 
This  in  the  case  of  Lampsakos  seems  rather  absurd.  The  Lampsakene 
gold  staters,  begun  probably  around  387  b.c.  as  we  have  shown,  ought 
surely  to  have  been  suppressed  by  a monarch  jealous  of  his  royal  right  to 
issue  gold.  Lampsakos  issued  electrum,  as  did  Kyzikos,  in  the  Fifth  Cen- 
tury, before  Persian  control  was  ended  by  the  struggles  at  Marathon  and 
Salamis;  and  similarly  in  the  Fourth  Century  both  of  these  mints  had  a 
coinage  in  gold  (or  electrum) . There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  logic  in 
assuming  that  the  Persian  kings  would  not  permit  the  issue  of  coinage  in 
electrum  or  gold  by  the  cities  over  which  they  had  sovereignty,  after  the 
conquest  of  Lydia  in  546  b.c.,  and  then  explaining  all  the  instances  where 
such  coinage  did  exist,  as,  for  example,  at  Chios,  Kyzikos,  Lampsakos,  as 
exceptions.  These  mints  certainly  struck  electrum  staters  between  550 
and  500  b.c.  Why  were  they  especially  privileged?  As  for  gold  issues, 
there  are  known  only  the  very  scanty  issues  of  staters  at  Ephesos,  Rhodes, 
Klazomenai  and  Abydos  which  were  all  probably  earlier  than  the  period  of 
Persian  control,  387  b.c.;  Abydos  struck  one  type  PI.  IV,  23,  which  appears 
on  one  of  the  earliest  Lampsakene  staters,  PI.  IV,  24,  and  is  probably  the 
prototype  of  the  latter.  But  in  none  of  the  above  cases  can  we  prove  the 
existence  of  a series  of  issues  begun  before  387  b.c.  and  coming  to  an  abrupt 
end  at  this  date.  If  this  were  the  case,  there  would  be  more  ground  for 
the  argument  that  coinage  in  gold  was  not  permitted  by  the  Persian  king.- 

The  Lampsakene  stater  coinage  begins  with  a type  copied  from  the 
Alliance  silver  coins,  and  this  scarcely  looks  as  though  there  were  any  lack 
of  freedom  in  the  choice  of  type.  The  weight  standard,  moreover,  is 
identical  with  that  of  the  Persian  darics.  Hence  we  can  only  conclude 
that  the  Lampsakene  staters  were  issued  without  any  interference  or  hind- 
rance as  to  the  choice  of  metal,  weight  or  type.  As  M.  Babelon  says  emphat- 
ically, “La  lampsacene  6tait  cre4e  pour  lutter  contre  le  darique.” 


The  Goi,b  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


41 


THE  WEIGHT  STANDARD 

The  recorded  weights  of  the  staters  here  catalogued  show  that  they 
range  from  8.30  to  8.56  grams.  The  tabulated  weights  of  132  specimens 


are  as 

follow^s: 

Grams 

Specimens 

Grams 

Specimens 

Grams 

Specimens 

8.30 

3 

8.40 

17 

8.46 

4 

8.32 

2 

8.41 

15 

8.47 

3 

8.33 

2 

8.42 

17 

8.48 

1 

8.34 

1 

8.43 

12 

8.49 

] 

8.35 

2 

8.44 

7 

8.50 

3 

8.36 

2 

8.45 

19 

8.54 

1 

8.37 

7 

8.65 

1 

8.38 

6 

8.56 

1 

8.39 

5 , 

Total  coins  =30  Total  coins  =87  Total  coins  =15  Total  132 

More  than  half  of  the  specimens  weigh  from  8.40  to  8.45  gr.;  a little 
over  one-ninth,  weigh  more  than  8.45  gr.,  and  a little  under  one-quarter  weigh 
less  than  8.40.'  As  we  should  expect,  there  are  more  coins  slightly  under 
weight  than  there  are  coins  of  excessive  weight.  The  norm  must  be  some- 
'where  between  8.40  and  .8.45  gr.  This  is  about  the  same  result  reached 
by  Dr.  Regling  in  his  analysis  of  the  average  weight  of  the  daric  which  he 
found  was  c.  8.40  gr.-‘‘  There  are  forty-nine  coins  within  the  range  8.40-8.42 
gr.  as  against  thirty-eight  within  the  range  8.43-8.45.  The  generally 
accepted  norm,  of  8.415  gr.  for  the  Lampsakene  stater  whose  weight  is  based 
on  the  Persian  daric  is  amply  confirmed  by  this  analysis. 

T.hese  are  the  staters,  which,  of  pure  gold  and  full  Persic  weight,  were 
struck  around  387  b.c.  to  compete  as  a circulating  medium  with  the  darics 
which  had  already  for.  a century  past  been  the  chief  stater  currency  of  the 
ancient  world. 

Naturally  the  coinage  of  an  autonomous  Greek  city,  and  that  too  not 
one  of  the  most  prominent,  was  not  very  abundant  as  compared  with  that 
of  a great  nation.  Less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  examples  of  these 
beautiful  staters  have  come  down  to  us,  and.  this  is  a -very  small  number 
in  comparison  with  the  number  of  darics  which  have  survived  from  ancient 
tiro.es,  as  many  as  three  hundred  having  once  been  found  in.  a single  deposit, 
near  Mt.  Athos.  Still  the  inscription  relating  to  the  sums  contributed  by 
the  allies  of  Boeotia  in  the  Sacred  War  (see- above,  p.  2,  note  2)  helps  us  to 
realize  that  the  Lampsakene  stater  coinage  was  of  considerable  importance 
as  a circulating  medium,  for  it  mentions  sums  of  five  hundred  and  of  eighty- 
four  gold  staters  of  Lampsakos,  I.-G.  VII,  2418,  11.  10,  11,  Bv^avnoi.  xp^o-i'm 

1 Klio,  1914,  p.  91  f. 


42 


The  Amekican  Journal  op  Numismatics 


Kafi-^aKavSi  aT[aTelpa<;]  oySoeiKovra  Trerra/aa?,  apyvpico  ' A.T\riK5>  8pa];^/ia?  Befcae^ 

“Byzantion  (contributed)  eighty-four  Lampsakene  gold  staters,  sixteen 
Attic  silver  drachms  ’ ’ J and  11.  20,  21,  Bva^dvrioc  [auve^dX]ov$o  Trevra- 

Kariayi  araT€lpa\^  ;j^pu<r]io)?  Aap,-^aKav(a<;  . . . , “ Byzantion  contributed  further 
five  hundred  gold  staters  of  Lampsakos.” 

The  date  when  the  Lampsakene  staters  ceased  to  be  issued  is  given 
in  the  British  Museum  Catalogue  as  c.  350  b.c.  It  is  noted,  however, 
in  the  introduction  to  this  catalogue  (p.  xxvi)  that  Six  supposed  the  coinage 
to  have  ceased  about  330  b.c.  This  view  of  Six  seems  the  more  probable 
as  the  staters  would  naturally  not  cease  abruptly  with  the  introduction 
of  a new  stater  coinage,  that  of  Philip  II,  but  only  came  to  a gradual  end 
when  Alexander’s  gold  staters  had  begun  to  be  very  abundant  in  the  markets 
of  Asia  Minor.  Six’s  reason  for  suggesting  the  later  date  was  his  inter- 
pretation of  three  of  the  Lampsakene  types  as  relating  to  Alexander.  The 
Zeus  Ammon  head,  PI.  Ill,  23,  the  Maenad  head,  PL  1, 32,  and  the  youthful 
beardless  head,  PI.  Ill,  22,  he  took  as  a group  struck  at  the  same  time  in 
honor  of  Alexander;  Zeus  Ammon,  as  the  divine  parent  claimed  by  the 
hero ; the  Maenad,  as  Alexander’s  real  mother  in  the  guise  of  a Maenad, 
recalling  the  orgiastic  worship  in  which  Olympias  was  reported  to  indulge; 
and  the  young  male  head  as  Alexander  himself  in  the  character  of  the  hero 
Achilles. 

Most  of  these  interpretations  seem  fanciful,  for,  to  begin  with,  the 
Maenad  type  is  only  one  of  many  Maenad  heads  that  appear  on  the  coinage, 
and  was  not  issued  at  the  end  of  the  series  but  rather  in  the  second  group, 
considerably  before  350  b.c.  The  Zeus  Ammon  type  falls  into  the  third  and 
last  group  of  the  coinage  according  to  the  evidence  of  its  reverse,  and  the 
same  may  be  said  of  the  young  heroic  head.  Now  this  latter  is  without 
attributes  and  cannot  be  identified  as  a divine  head.  There  is  one  other 
case  similar  to  it  in  this  respect,  namely,  the  female  head,  PL  II,  28,  29, 
which  has  been  called  conjecturally,  Lampsake,  the  eponymous  heroine 
of  the  city.  Of  her  we  read  in  Plutarch  and  this  is  a fair  conjecture.  But 
there  is  no  name  to  be  found  for  the  young  male  head.  Can  it  possibly  be 
that  the  head  was  intended  as  a heroic  head  meant  to  embody  Alexander’s 
likeness?  The  suggestion  which  grows  out  of  Six’s  interpretation  does  not 
seem  entirely  improbable  — the  head  has  a somewhat  Alexandrine  char- 
acter, and  occurring  as  it  does  at  about  the  date  when  Alexander  was  sub- 
missively received  by  the  inhabitants  of  Lampsakos,  it  may  not  be  out 
of  the  way  to  regard  the  choice  of  the  two  types,  PL  III,  22  23,  as  selected  out 
of  compliment  to  Alexander  who  spared  the  city  when  it  gracefully  submitted 
to  his  invasion  in  334  b.c. 


The  Gold  Statees  of  Lampsakos 


43 


A retrospective  glance  at  the  publication  of  the  various  types  of  staters 
gives  an  idea  of  the  frequency  with  which  new  specimens  and  types  have 
come  to  light.  The  earliest  stater  known  appears  to  be  the  Maenad  head 
(Type  11),  Berlin  (Fox)  example.  In  1763-70,  two  more  types,  Herakles 
and  serpents,  and  Lampsake  were  published,  followed  in  1782  by  the  Persian 
satrap  and  Maenad  with  diadem  (Type  17)  types.  In  1817  Sestini  was  able 
to  list  ten  types  in  his  Stateri  Antichi.  Gradually  during  the  last  century 
additions  to  the  types  became  known,  being  published  one  or  two  at  a time. 
New  types  appeared  occasionally  in  finds,  seven  each  in  the  two  finds  at 
Avola  and  in  the  Troad  about  1890.  A possible  third  find  reported  as  occur- 
ring near  Alexandria  in  Egypt  in  1908  brought  to  light  several  staters  of 
types  already  known.  In  the  J.  I.  N.  1902,  the  writer  gave  a list  of  thirty- 
six  types,  and  since  then  only  the  Perseus  head,  the  Kneeling  Archer  and 
youthful  Dionysos  types  have  been  made  known,  bringing  the  number  up 
to  thirty-nine.  But  as  a result  of  the  re-arrangement  of  the  staters  in 
three  groups,  it  becomes  clear  that  the  three  Dionysos  heads  which  were 
formerly  listed  as  one  type  are  not  merely  three  different  dies  employed 
for  a single  issue,  but  are  rather  three  chronologically  separate  issues  belong- 
ing respectively  to  the  earlier  style,  the  Weber  coin,  PL  I,  17,  the  inter- 
mediate style,  the  Paris  and  Jameson  coins,  PI.  II,  18, 19,  and  the  later  style, 
the  Boston  coin,  PI.  Ill,  21.  These  three  heads  furnish  an  apt  illustration 
of  the  same  subject  treated  according  to  the  three  variations  of  style  dis- 
cernible in  the  coinage.  By  classifying  them  as  separate  types,  we  gain  two 
more,  and  arrive  at  forty-one  as  our  total  number. 

Of  these  forty-one  types,  sixteen  are  unique.  Those  types  of  which 
the  most  numerous  specimens  are  known  are,  the  Maenad  with  flying  hair. 
Type  17,  and  Zeus  with  scepter.  Type  29;  there  being  seventeen  examples 
of  the  former,  and  thirty  of  the  latter  here  catalogued.  It  may  be  chance 
which  has  brought  down  to  us  so  many  more  of  the  Zeus  with  scepter  types, 
but  it  seems  reasonable  to  infer  in  this  case,  and  doubtless  in  the  other  also, 
that  there  were  larger  issues  of  these  particular  types  than  of  the  others. 

Only  two  instances  of  struck  forgeries  of  these  staters  in  gold  have 
come  to  the  writer’s  attention,  the  Nike  on  ram  type.  Cat.  Durufie,  May, 
1910,  No.  509,  an  obvious  case,  and  the  female  Satyr  type  seen  in  commerce 
a number  of  years  ago,  of  which  the  obverse  flan  was  concave,  and  the 
hair  of  the  head  unskilfully  executed  giving  the  back  hair  a sagging 
appearance. 


44 


The  American  Journal  op  Numismatics 


COMMENT  ON  THE  TYPES 

Type  1,  Herakles  kneeling  to  the  right  and  strangling  two  serpents, 
PI.  IV,  6,  7,  was  copied  from  the  Alliance  coinage  of  Byzantion,  Rhodos^ 
Samos,  PI.  IV,  8,  lasos,  Knidos,  PI.  IV,  10,  and  Ephesos,  PI.  IV,  9,  which 
in  turn  was  borrowed  from  the  coinage  of  Thebes,  PI.  IV,  1-4.  The  type 
first  occurred  on  the  Theban  staters  of  446-426  b.c.  (British  Museum 
Catalogue,  Central  Greece,  pi.  xii,  7)  where  it  appears  with  other  Heraklean 
subjects,  and  was  used  apparently  in  a symbolical  sense  as  typifying  the 
struggle  for  freedom  from  external  domination.  On  later  Theban  staters 
and  on  the  pale  gold  issues  of  426-387  b.c., PI.  IV,  3,  4,  the  type  was  again 
used.  On  one  of  the  latter  pieces,  PI.  IV,  4,  the  infant  Herakles  is  no 
longer  represented  as  seated  and  facing,  but  kneeling  (type  to  r.)  as  on  the 
Alliance  pieces,  and  wrestling  with  the  serpents  in  the  same  fashion  as  on 
these  latter  coins.  The  hekte  of  Kyzikos,  PI.  IV,  5,  may  have  been  an 
intermediary  in  the  transmission  of  the  type,  though  not  necessarily,  as  its 
type  is  in  the  facing  pose  seen  in  the  Theban  gold  coin,  PI.  IV,  3. 

Incidentally  the  study  of  the  Alliance  issues  of  Knidos  brings  out 
some  interesting  points  of  chronology  through  the  comparison  of  the  heads 
of  Aphrodite  Euploia  which  occur  on  the  reverses.  The  head  of  the  goddess, 
distinguished  as  Euploia  by  the  symbol,  a prow,  on  the  Alliance  issues,  PI. 
IV,  10-12,  appears  to  be  earlier  in  style  than  the  same  head  on  the  tetra- 
drachm  series,  PI.  IV,  13,  where  it  occurs  as  obverse  type  combined  with  the 
lion’s  head  reverse.  The  tetradrachms,  however,  are  dated  earlier  in 
Head’s  Hist.  Num.^,  p.  615,  and  in  the  British  Museum  Catalogue  Caria. 
The  prow  symbol  was  not  first  placed  beside  the  head  on  the  tetradrachm, 
for  it  occurs  on  a drachm,  PI.  IV,  14,  of  the  transitional  style.  The  only 
point  against  the  order  here  suggested  is  the  fact  that  the  ethnic  in 
full  KNIAIQN  occurs  on  the  Alliance  issues,  PI.  IV,  10,  whereas  on  the 
tetradrachms  the  short  form  KNI  is  used.  This  may  have  been  the  de- 
termining reason  for  placing  the  tetradrachms  before  the  Alliance  issues. 
But  there  is  an  example  of  an  Alliance  coin  with  KNI,  PI.  IV,  11,  and 
the  evidence  of  style  is  very  strong.  Knidos,  according  to  Head,  adopted 
the  Rhodian  weight  standard  on  which  the  tetradrachms  are  struck,  about 
400  B.C.,  following  the  example  of  Rhodos.  But  under  Rhodes,  Hist. 
Num.,2  p.  638,  the  arrangement  of  the  issues  is  at  variance  with  this 
statement.  After  the  initial  silver  coinage  of  408-404  b.c.,  is  placed  the 
Alliance  coinage  (of  c.  394  b.c.,  according  to  the  theory) . Then  there 
follows  the  gold  stater  coinage,  and  next  the  tetradrachms  of  Rhodian 
weight,  400-333  b.c.  This  places  the  introduction  of  the  Rhodian  standard 


The  Gold  Stateks  op  Lampsakos 


45 


at  Rhodos  after  the  Alliance  issues;  or,  if  the  Alliance  pieces  are  regarded 
as  Rhodian  tridrachms,  as  coincident  with  the  Alliance  issues.  The  style, 
at  any  rate,  of  the  Knidian  tetradrachms  seems  to  give  sufficient  reason 
for  placing  them  quite  a little  later  than  the  Alliance  coins.  Also,  at 
Ephesos  and  Samos,  the  tetradrachms  of  Rhodian  weight,  parallel  to  the 
Rhodian  tetradrachms  and  bearing  magistrates’  names  in  full  as  at  Rhodos, 
begin  after  the  Alliance  issues. 

Type  2,  Helle  -on  the  ram,  is  a rare  subject  on  Greek  coins.  The 
myth  of  Phrixos  and  Helle,  the  children  of  Athamas  who  were  about  to  he 
sacrificed  by  their  father  to  Zeus  Laphystios  in  pursuance  of  an  oracle, 
and  were  rescued  by  their  mother  Nepiiele  who  sent  the  ram  with  the 
golden  fleece,  was  localized  at  Lampsakos,  as  is  shown  by  an  imperial  coin 
type  with  Phrixos  and  Helle  (Zeit.  f.  Num.,  VII,  p.  25).  Athamas  was 
said  to  have  founded  Halus  in  Thessaly  whose  coins  show  Phrixos  or  Helle 
on  the  ram. 

Type  3,  youthful  head  in  a winged  helmet,  is  also  unusual.  A stater 
of  Kyzikos  of  early  style  has  a similar  subject  but  there  is  no  resemblance 
to  the  Lampsakene  type.  _ M.  Babeloii  has  called  this  head  “Atys”,  but 
from  the  circumstance  that  the  helmet  on  one  piece  seems  to  have  terminated 
in  a griffin’s  head,  now  mostly  off  the  flan,  the  head  seems  reasonably  to  be 
identified  as  a very  youthful  Perseus. 

Type  4,  Orpheus,  in  Phrygian  cap  and  long  garments,  seated  on  a 
rock  in  a musing  attitude  and  holding  his  lyre,  was  first  published  by 
Lobbecke  (Zeit.  f.  Num.  1890,  p.  170)  and  thus  designated  because  of  the 
Phrygian  cap  which  is  clearly  indicated  on  the  coin.  The  type  is  earlier 
than  the  type  of  Apollo  seated  on  the  omphalos  struck  in  346  b.c.  by  the 
Amphictyoiiic  Council  at  Delphi.  On  the  Lamps,akene  coin,  the  seat, 
partly  covered  by  the  mantle  thrown  back,  is  a rock,^  not  the  omphalos,  and 
there  is  no  laurel  branch.  Orpheus  is  represented  as  seated  on  a rock 
and  playing  the  lyre  on  a coin  of  Traiaiiopolis  in  Thrace  (Head,  Hist.  Num.®, 
p.  288).  The  musing  attitude,  however,  reminds  one  of  the  Delphic  stater. 
Still  the  Phrygian  cap-  and  the  absence  of  any  Apolline  attributes  inclines 
one  to  consider  the  figure  as  Orpheus  rather  than  Apollo. 

Type  5,  Thetis  on  a dolphin,  was  probably  copied  from  the  Kyzikene 
stater  c.  450-400  b.c.  of  somewhat  similar  type,  PL  IV,  15,  16.  On  this 
latter  piece  the  Nereid  or  Thetis  holds  a wreath  and  shield,  while  on  our 
stater  she  holds  greaves  and  a shield.  This  type  was  long  ago  identified 
as  Thetis,  the  sea-goddess,  bearing  the  arms  of  her  son  Achilles.  However, 
on  coin  types  representing  Thetis  at  Larissa  Kremaste  in  Thessaly  (Head, 

‘ Apollo  oa  a rock  with  lyre  is  a Sikyonian  type.  Head,  Hist.  Num.®,  p.  410. 


46 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


Hist.  Num.,2  p.  300)  and  of  Pyrrhus,  King  of  Epirus,  {ibid.,  p.  323),  Thetis 
is  riding  on  a hippocamp.  On  the  former  coin,  the  shield  is  inscribed  ^ 
and  there  is  therefore  no  doubt  regarding  the  interpretation.  On  our  coin, 
however,  the  sea-nymph  rides  a dolphin,  and  there  is  no  evidence  of  local 
cult  to  support  the  interpretation  as  in  Thessaly,  the  home  of  Achilles. 

Type  6,  a kneeling  archer  in  Oriental  dress,  should  be  compared  for  pose 
and  action  with  the  kneeling  nude  Apollo  on  the  stater  of  Kyzikos,  PI.  IV, 
17,  18,  dating  c.  450-400  b.c.,  of  earlier  style,  as  the  pose  of  the  bent  right  leg 
indicates.  On  the  Lampsakene  stater  the  kneeling  position  is  admirably 
done  although  it  would  be  interesting  to  know  just  how  the  artist  succeeded 
with  the  left  foot  now  off  the  flan,  as  the  left  leg  seems  stretched  almost 
too  far  in  advance.  A similar  pose  is  found  on  Sikyonian  coins,  Apollo 
and  Artemis,  PL  IV,  19,  21,  and  at  Orchomenos  in  Arcadia  and  Chersonesos, 
Artemis,  PI.  IV,  20,  22.  On  the  silver  coins  of  Sikyon,  the  figures  hold  an 
arrow  with  the  bow  in  the  left  hand;  and  on  the  Paris  specimen  of  the 
Kyzikene  stater,  Apollo  holds  an  arrow  also  which  is  not  visible  on  other 
examples.  On  the  Lampsakene  stater  the  shaft  of  an  arrow  is  visible  above 
the  archer’s  left  hand,  held  horizontally.  Whether  Artemis  on  the  bronze 
coins  of  Orchomenos  and  Chersonesos  is  also  holding  an  arrow  in  the  left 
is  not  clear,  and  some  specimens  have  been  described  as  showing  the  arrow 
on  the  ground  which  Artemis  is  about  to  lift  with  her  right  hand.  The 
figures  therefore  are  best  described  as  about  to  shoot,  and  not  as  watching 
the  effect  of  an  arrow  which  has  just  been  discharged,  as  with  British 
Museum  Catalogue  Mysia  (p.  26,  No.  64,  note)  on  the  Kyzikene  stater. 

Type  7,  Nike  sacrificing  a ram,  is  a copy  of  the  gold  stater  of  Abydos 
(British  Museum  Catalogue  Troas,  pi.  xl)  which  is  slightly  earlier,  411-387 
B.C.,  and  much  inferior  in  style.  The  subject  is  a familiar  sculpturesque 
motive  with  the  bull  as  the  animal  of  sacrifice. 

The  facing  Satyr’s  head  of  Type  8,  is  probably  not  connected  with  the 
facing  Satyr  head  on  gold  staters  of  Pantikapaion  as  the  head  is  so  differently 
treated  on  the  latter,  the  neck  in  profile  to  the  left  and  the  head  in  three- 
quarters  view. 

Type  9,  the  Demeter  head,  is  an  exquisite  gem-like  piece  of  work, 
and  may  of  course  equally  well  be  designated  as  Persephone  since  a veiled 
Demeter  occurs  soon  after  on  the  coinage. 

Type  10,  the  head  of  Dionysos,  should  be  compared  with  the  two  later 
heads,  Types,  22,  35  (PI.  II,  18  and  III,  21).  Its  style  is  quite  superior  to 
the  rather  coarse  work  of  the  latest  head  and  to  the  more  formal  rendering 
of  the  middle  type. 

Type  11,  the  Maenad  heads,  like  the  Dionysos  head  just  preceding,  are 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


47 


noteworthy  for  their  successful  rendering  of  the  animal  expression  on  a 
human  head. 

Type  12,  the  small  Pan  head  and  the  Hermes  head,  Type  13,  call  for 
no  special  comment.  The  latter  PI.  IV,  26,  is  probably  copied  from  the 
Kyzikene  stater,  PI.  IV,  25. 

Type  14,  the  Apollo  head  with  fillets  is  an  unusual  type.  When  the 
Munich  specimen,  PI.  I,  27,  alone  was  in  existence,  the  head  was  variously 
described  as  Aphrodite  (the  laurel  wreath  being  supposed  to  be  myrtle,  and 
the  fillets,  a string  of  pearls  woven  in  the  hair),  as  Demeter,  and  sometimes 
as  Apollo.  The  Boston  specimen,  PI.  I,  28,  makes  it  clear  that  the  head  is 
not  feminine  and  that  it  is  a bandelette  of  wool  terminating  in  a triple 
fringe  which  is  woven  in  the  hair. 

The  next  two  types,  Herakles  in  the  lion’s  scalp  and  Demeter  veiled. 
Types  15  and  16,  need  not  be  noted  particularly. 

Type  17,  the  Maenad  with  flying  hair,  is  of  great  originality  and  very 
interesting  to  study  in  its  artistic  development  which  culminates  in  the 
beautiful  Paris  staters,  PI.  II,  3,  4.  The  heads  on  all  the  different  dies  are 
full  of  spirit  and  expressive  of  the  Maenad  in  flight. 

Type  18,  the  Athena  head,  and  the  facing  Athena  head  of  Type  20, 
are  well  done  though  perfectly  conventional  renderings. 

Type  19,  Maenad  head  in  a sakkos  and  wearing  a wreath  of  grapes, 
is  entirely  human  in  expression  and  it  therefore  seems  most  fitting  that  it 
should  come  after  the  other  Maenad  heads. 

Type  21,  the  bearded  head  in  a satrapal  tiara,  was  formerly  identified 
as  Pharnabazos  who  struck  coins  at  Kyzikos  in  410  b.c.,  but  M.  Babelon, 
following  Six,  has  more  persuasively  identified  the  head  as  that  of  Orontas, 
satrap  of  Mysia  and  Ionia,  c.  362-345  b.c.  Bronze  coins  bearing  the  name 
of  this  satrap,^  showing  a head  resembling  somewhat  the  head  on  the  Lamp- 
sakene  stater,  but  very  small,  and  silver  coins  with  the  name  of  Orontas  and 
the  Lampsakene  arms,  forepart  of  Pegasos  as  reverse  type,  were  struck  at 
Lampsakos.  The  latter  piece^  has  for  obverse  type  a helmeted  Athena  very 
like  the  head  on  the  Lampsakene  staters,  PI.  II,  5-8.  These  staters^  accord- 
ing to  our  chronological  arrangement,  appear  to  belong  to  the  very  same 
period  as  the  satrapal  staters.  The  date  of  issue  of  these  interesting  portrait 
staters  is,  therefore,  c.  362  b.c.,  when  Orontas  was  in  revolt  against  Arta- 
xerxes  II  Mnemon,  king  of  Persia,  on  which  occasion  the  other  coins  of 
Orontas  were  struck  at  Lampsakos.® 

* Babelon,  Trait^^,  pi.  Ixxxviii,  19,  20. 

2 B.  M.  C.  Ionia,  pi.  xxxi,  8. 

® Babelon,  Trait4  IP,  p.  105  f.  Head,  Hist.  Num.,^  p.  597. 


48 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


Type  23,  the  head  of  Helios  on  a radiate  disk,  is  a type  which  is  also 
found  on  a silver  drachm  of  Megiste,  PL  IV,  27,  28,  an  island  off  Caria,  of 
the  Fourth  Century  b.c.  The  type  is  unusual,  but  of  course  it  is  quite 
certain  that  the  Carian  coin  is  later.  The  I^ampsakene  head,  moreover, 
is  an  improvement  on  the  other  piece  for  the  rays  begin  properly  at  the  rim 
of  the  disk. 

Type  25,  the  figure  of  Ge,  rising  from  the  earth,  seems  likely  to  have 
been  modelled  upon  a corresponding  figure  on  a Kyzikene  stater,  PI.  IV, 
29,  30.  The  pose  of  Ge,  or  Gaia,  on  the  Kyzikene  stater  is  the  same  as  on 
the  Lampsakene ; her  mantle  falls  over  the  left  arm  similarly,  and  on  both 
staters  she  bears  the  same  fruits  of  the  earth,  corn  and  grapes,  though  dif- 
ferently disposed.  On  the  Lampsakene  coin,  the  head  of  the  earth  goddess 
is  thrown  back  which  accentuates  the  impression  of  rising  from  the  ground, 
as  does  also  the  ground  line  which  is  uneven  and  not  like  an  exergual  line. 

Type  28,  the  Hera  head,  is  so  close  to  the  corresponding  Kyzikene 
head  that  here  again  we  seem  to  have  a case  of  copying.  In  both  the  above 
instances  the  Kyzikene  staters  are  anterior  to  400  b.c. 

Types  29-32,  Zeus  with  scepter,  Nike  head,  Herakles  as  Omphale  and 
female  Satyr,  represent  the  four  highest  developments  of  the  art  of  the 
Lampsakene  staters.  The  symbol  behind  the  Zeus  head.  Type  29,  is  not 
a thunderbolt  as  it  has  always  been  called,  but  a scepter,  the  shaft  of  which 
is  visible  below  the  beard,  PI.  II,  34,  PI.  HI,  4.  The  seated  Zeus  on  coins  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  and  of  the  kings  of  Syria  and  the  seated  Baal  on  coins 
of  Cilicia,  show  this  type  of  scepter  which  terminates  in  a lotiform  ornament. 

The  identification  of  the  bearded  head  wearing  a stephane  and  with  a 
club  behind  the  neck.  Type  31,  was  made  by  Head.  M.  Svoronos  was 
formerly  inclined  to  consider  it  a Pan  head,  from  the  appearance  of  the 
front  locks  which  resemble  upright  horns ; the  symbol  behind  the  head 
would  then  have  to  be  a pedum.  But  the  latter  looks  more  like  a club  and 
the  stephane  is  unexplained  and  quite  anomalous  on  a head  of  Pan.  The 
back  hair,  too,  is  turned  up  in  feminine  fashion;  compare  the  heads  of  Hera, 
PI.  II,  30,  of  Nike,  PI.  Ill,  10,  and  of  Hekate,  PI.  HI,  19.  The  appearance 
of  horns  is  probably  accidental,  and  Head’s  brilliant  identification  stands. 
Furthermore,  the  Omphale  legend  of  Herakles,  of  Lydian  origin,  according 
to  which  Herakles  underwent  a voluntary  servitude,  donning  female  attire 
as  an  atonement  for  homicide,  seems  to  have  been  localized  at  Lampsakos 
since  there  exists  an  imperial  coin  type  (Macdonald,  Hunter.  Cat.  pi.  xlviii, 
5)  of  Herakles  and  Omphale,  PI.  X,  11. 

The  Nike  head.  Type  30,  has  been  called  an  Eros  (J.  H.  S.,  1897,  p.  85) 
on  account  of  the  wreath  which  seems  to  be  certainly  of  myrtle,  The 


The  Gold  Stateks  of  Lampsakos 


49 


coin  from  which  the  identification  was  made  is  the  British  Museum  specimen, 
PL,  III,  10,  but  although  this  die  has  a somewhat  masculine  cast,  the  other 
dies,  PL  III,  8,  9,  would  never  suggest  that  the  head  was  anything  but 
feminine. 

The  head  of  a female  Satyr,  Type  32,  with  pointed  ear  and  ivy  wreath 
is  a most  beautiful  type,  and  the  subject  is  exceedingly  rare.  One  can 
hardly  call  it  a Maenad  head,  for  Maenads  on  the  Greek  vases  and  on  coins 
do  not  have  pointed  ears.  In  fact  the  pointed  ear  on  a female  head  is  most 
unusual  in  Greek  art.  There  are  a few  instances  of  a Satyresse  catalogued 
in  Reinach’s  Repertoire,  but  in  none  of  these  is  it  possible  to  detect  the 
presence  of  the  pointed  ear.  Several  years  ago,  however,  the  writer  while 
wandering  through  the  Musee  du  Louvre  in  search  of  some  such  evidence, 
was  rewarded  by  the  discovery  of  a Fourth  Century  female  bust  in  Pentelic 


marble,  of  which  the  ears  are  pointed  goat’s  ears  (W.  Froehner,  Sculp- 
ture antique  du  Musee  national  du  Louvre,  Paris,  1878,  p.  285,  No.  286). 
The  nose  and  the  bust  associated  with  this  head  are  restored,  but  the  head 


50 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


itself  is  antique.^  The  sculpture  is  not  a perfect  parallel  to  our  coin  for  it 
is  a purely  human  type,  whereas  the  coin  shows  an  ivy-wreathed  and  di- 
shevelled female  Satyr,  characterized  as  female  by  the  ear-ring  and  neck- 
lace. But  the  subject  is  so  rare  in  Greek  art  that  we  are  fortunate  to  be 
able  to  find  it  on  a marble  of  the  same  period  as  our  stater. 

Type  33,  the  head  of  Aktaion,  is  also  a rare  one  in  Greek  art.  It,  too, 
occurs  on  a Kyzikene  stater  of  the  period  450-400  b.c.  but  there  is  no  resem- 
blance of  style  between  the  two  staters. 

Type  38,  the  young  and  beardless  Dionysos,  is  of  special  interest  as  a 
fine  example  of  a Fourth  Century  rendering  of  the  subject.  At  Maroneia 
in  Thrace,  the  youthful  Dionysos  type  occurs  on  coins  struck  previously  to 
400  B.c.  (Head,  Hist.  Num.,^  p.  250),  and  this  is  one  of  the  earliest  instances 
of  the  type  on  coins.  A beautiful  head  on  the  coins  of  Lamia  in  Thessaly 
of  the  period  400-344  b.c.  (cf.  the  coin  in  the  Pozzi  Collection,  pi.  xl,  1205) 
is  very  close  to  our  Lampsakene  stater  in  style.  The  head  has  the  same 
rather  full,  soft  chin,  and  the  hair  and  wreath  are  done  in  about  the  same 
manner,  though  the  gold  stater  is  immeasurably  superior  to  the  Lamian 
piece.  At  Kyzikos  also  on  staters  of  the  Fourth  Century,  the  ivy-crowned 
young  Dionysos  head  occurs  (Babelon,  Traite,  pi.  clxxiii,  22).  The  hair, 
however,  is  not  orderly  but  dishevelled,  and  the  type  seems  earlier  than  the 
Lampsakene  head. 

Type  39,  the  bearded  Kabeiros  head,  is  again  a copy  of  a Kyzikene 
prototype,  PI.  IV,  33,  34,  the  latter  dating  c.  400-350  b.c.  This  head  was 
formerly  described  as  Odysseus  or  Hephaistos  on  account  of  the  conical 
pilos  which  is  also  worn  by  Odysseus  on  the  coins  of  Ithake  and  by 
Hephaistos  on  coins  of  Methana  in  Argolis.  However,  since  von  Fritze  has 
discussed  the  cult  of  the  Kabeiroi  at  Birytis  and  Kebren  in  Troas  (Zeit.  f. 
Num.  xxiv,  p.  105  f),  and  has  shown  the  existence  of  a young  (beardless) 
Kabeiros  and  an  elder  (bearded)  Kabeiros  at  Kyzikos,  the  present  designa- 
tion has  been  generally  accepted. 

Type  40,  the  Athena  head,  is  copied  from  the  coinage  of  Athens.  An 
Athenian  tetradrachm  (British  Museum  Catalogue  Attica,  pi.  v,  6)  which  is 
closest  in  style  to  our  Lampsakene  stater,  PL  IV,  35,  36,  dates  about  350-300 
B.c.  The  head  is  done  in  the  pseudo-archaic  manner  of  the  F ourth-Century 
Athenian  issues  and  it  at  first  glance  looks  most  out  of  place  among  the  other 
Lampsakene  types.  It  is  executed,  moreover,  in  the  copyist  spirit,  and 
lacks  style  and  beauty  altogether. 

1 Froehner,  loc.  cit.,  “Satyre  Femelle.  Buste.  Les  oreilles  de  chevre  et  deux  touffes  de  poil  qu’on 
remarque  sur  la  figure  de  cette  femme  la  caracterisent  comme  Satyre  femelle  (Fauna  Satyra) : representation 
tres  rare  et  trds  interessante.  (Le  nez  et  le  buste  sont  modernes.  La  14vre  super ieure  a souffert.)  Marble 
penteiique.  Mus4e  Campana.  Hauteur  totale  0.52.  ” 


The  Gold  Staters  op  Lampsakos 


51 


The  head  of  Type  41  is  done  in  a curiously  rough  style.  It  is  impossible 
to  say  what  goddess  is  here  represented,  for  the  wreath  which  passes  over 
the  sakkos  and  hair  is  unidentifiable.  On  the  earlier  die  I,  there  is  a small 
bud  at  the  base  of  the  flower,  but  this  is  not  seen  on  the  later  die  II.  Also, 
on  die  I,  in  place  of  the  flower  there  is  a leaf  to  the  right  of  the  ear  and  on  the 
sakkos,  which  might  pass  as  a lotus  leaf.  This  leaf  is  replaced  by  a flower 
on  the  second  die.  If  the  wreath  is  a lotus,  the  head  is  doubtless  that  of 
Aphrodite  who  was  associated  with  this  plant  on  coins  of  Cilicia  (Aphrodisias 
and  Nagidos,  Head,  Hist.  Num.,^  p.  718,  726)  and  Cyprus  (Idalium,  loc.  cit., 
p.  739) . If  the  wreath  is  not  a lotus,  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  else  it  may  be. 

As  evidence  of  cult,  the  Lampsakene  stater  types  as  a whole  are  not  of 
special  value,  since  they  do  not  represent  the  chief  deities  of  local  promi- 
nence as  usual.  The  distinctive  badges  of  this  mint  are  first,  the  fore-part 
of  Pegasos  found  on  the  earliest  coins  in  electrum  and  silver,  and  second, 
the  janiform  female  head  found  on  the  silver  from  500  b.c.  on.  The  gold 
staters  bear  constantly  varying  obverse  types  drawn  from  the  whole  Greek 
Pantheon,  while  the  arms  of  the  city  occupies  the  reverse.  This  is  com- 
parable to  the  choice  of  types  on  the  electrum  issues  at  Kyzikos  where  the 
badge  proper  is  relegated  to  the  position  of  adjunct  symbol,  and  all  sorts 
of  animal  and  figure  types  are  used  for  the  obverses.  Many  of  these  latter 
are  types  which  are  found  earlier  on  other  coinages  and  hence,  it  may  be 
inferred,  were  suggested  by  those  coinages,  and  borrowed,  if  not  precisely 
copied.  At  Lampsakos  there  are  cases  of  obverse  types  copied  directly 
from  other  coinages,  as  already  shown,  or  inspired  by  them.  One  would 
have  to  eliminate  therefore  these  copied  or  inspired  types  in  reaching  any 
conclusions  as  to  the  principal  deities  worshipped  at  Lampsakos. 

Of  the  higher  Olympic  gods,  Zeus  and  Athena  seem  to  occupy  an 
important  position.  A Zeus  head  occurs  as  two  different  types,  PI.  II,  22, 
and  31  and  in  the  latter  his  head  is  entirely  original  in  the  matter  of  the 
scepter  which  is  the  adjunct  symbol.  Athena  has  three  types,  PI.  II,  5,  14, 
and  PI.  Ill,  29,  the  last,  however,  being  an  imitated  type.  Still  Athena’s 
head  occupies  the  reverse  of  the  majority  of  the  silver  issues  Pis.  V,  VI, 
and  her  head  is  the  obverse  type  chosen  by  the  satrap  Orontas  for  his  Lamp- 
sakene issues  (British  Museum  Catalogue  Ionia,  pi.  xxxi,  8).  Orontas 
also  placed  the  head  of  Zeus  on  one  of  his  Lampsakene  coins  (Babelon, 
Perses  Achemen.  pi.  ix,  12).  From  the  above  facts  it  seems  fair  to  infer 
that  these  deities  were  in  particular  known  at  Lampsakos.  The  later 
bronze  coinage,  PL  IX,  19-24,  also  employs  the  Zeus  type. 

Demeter  is  found  on  three  types,  PL  I,  15,  a corn-wreathed  head, 
PL  I,  30,  a wreathed  and  veiled  head,  and  PL  II,  25,  a figure  rising  from 


52 


The  Amekican  Journal  of  Numismatics 


the  ground,  and  on  a bronze  coin,  PL  IX,  35.  The  figure  type  seems  to 
have  been  suggested  by  the  Kyzikene  stater,  PI.  IV,  29,  to  be  sure,  but  the 
triple  occurrence  of  Demeter  on  the  gold  coins  seems  to  warrant  the  con- 
clusion that  her  cult  was  prominent  at  Lampsakos.  No  other  Olympic  dei- 
ties are  especially  conspicuous  on  these  staters,  though  Apollo,  Hermes  and 
Dionysos  are  found.  Apollo  occurs  on  the  Fourth  Century  silver,  PL  VI, 
36-39,  and  on  later  bronze,  and  hence  his  cult  seems  probable.  The  later 
coinage  of  Lampsakos,  however,  discloses  what  was  one  of  the  chief  cults 
of  the  city,  namely,  that  of  Dionysos-Priapos.  On  the  large  flat  tetra- 
drachms  struck  after  the  battle  of  Magnesia  in  190  b.c.,  PL  VIII,  1-6, 
when  Lampsakos  received  its  autonomy  from  Rome,  an  ivy-crowned  and 
horned  head  occupies  the  obverse.  On  the  latest  bronze  coins  this  head 
recurs  again,  PL  X,  2-7,  and  the  figure  of  Priapos  is  found  on  Imperial 
coins,  PL  X,  8,  17,  19.  Priapos  is  an  hypostasis  of  Dionysos,  as  noted  ear- 
lier. He  wears  the  wreath  of  ivy  leaves  with  berries,  has  ram’s  horns  which 
betoken  his  animal  nature^as  a fertility  god.  This  characteristic  is  most 
prominent  on  the  Imperial  issues. 


The  Gold  Staters  op  Lampsakos 


53 


THE  SILVER  AND  BRONZE  COINAGES  OF  LAMPSAKOS 

It  was  the  writer’s  original  plan  to  issue  a separate  article  on  the  silver 
and  bronze  coinages  of  Lampsakos  thus  completing  the  studies  already 
presented  on  the  Lampsakene  electrum  and  gold  staters.  Impressions 
had  already  been  gathered  from  the  collections  of  London,  Paris,  Cambridge 
and  Glasgow,  and  the  plates  were  prepared  when  word  was  received  from 
Dr.  Gaebler  in  August,  1922,  that  he  was  about  to  publish  a manuscript 
on  the  silver  coins  of  Lampsakos  left  by  the  late  Dr.  von  Fritze.  It  was 
then  decided  to  append  the  plates  to  the  present  article  on  the  gold  staters 
and  restrict  the  text  mainly  to  a brief  summary  of  the  chronological  order 
of  the  issues. 

The  whole  publication  was^  however,  retarded  in  the  autumn  of  1922 
by  the  writer’s  more  extended  researches  in  the  field  of  the  Alexandrine 
and  Lysimachian  issues  at  Lampsakos,  and  subsequently  by  a complete 
cessation  of  numismatic  work,  due  to  the  agreeable  but  all-absorbing  task 
of  serving  on  the  Publication  Committee  of  the  Exhibition  of  American  Sculp- 
ture held  by  the  National  Sculpture  Society  on  the  grounds  of  the  Numis- 
matic and  the  adjoining  Museums.  Since  taking  up  again  the  task  of  com- 
pleting a much-postponed  publication,  the  paper  by  Dr.  Gaebler  on  the 
silver  coins  has  come  out  in  Nomisma,  XII,  1923.  It  is  accompanied  by 
two  plates  which  do  not  duplicate  but  rather  complement  Pis.  V and  VI 
here  given,  since  so  many  examples  have  been  drawn  by  Dr.  Gaebler  from 
Berlin,  Copenhagen,  Brussels  and  other  foreign  museums,  not  included 
in  these  plates.  The  dates  assigned  to  the  autonomous  silver  issues  and 
the  arrangement  of  the  same  are  practically  identical  in  the  two  articles, 
but  Dr.  Gaebler’s  views  as  to  the  dates  of  certain  issues,  notably,  the  second 
group  of  the  Janiform  head  series,  andj^he  Alexandrine  tetradrachms  diverge 
considerably  from  those  that  the  writer  had  formed,  and  in  these  two  view- 
points will  be  found  a fruitful  topic  for  discussion.  The  writer  wishes  to 
express  to  Dr.  Gaebler  her  appreciation  of  his  kindness  in  forwarding  a copy 
of  his  paper  so  promptly  and  of  his  careful  review  of  her  paper  on  the  electrum 
staters  (Numismatisches  Literatur-Blatt,  1921,  No.  216-217,  p.  1798). 


I 


54 


The  American  Journal  op  Numismatics 


SILVER 

THE  HALF-PEGASOS  TYPES 
c.  510  B.c.  or  earlier 

I.  Forepart  of  Pegasos  to  1.  or  r.  Rev.  Quadripartite  incuse  square.  PL  V,  1-7. 

Denominations  : didrachms,  tetrobols  and  diobols. 

THE  JANIFORM  HEAD  TYPES 
Group  A.  c.  500-470  b.c. 

I.  Archaic  Janiform  female  head  with  round  ear-ring,  necklace  and  diadem.  Rev. 
Athena  head  in  Corinthian  helmet  1.  within  a square  incuse.  PI.  V,  8-17. 

Denominations : tetrobol  PI.  V,  8 ; drachms,  PI.  V,  9-13 ; obols,  PI.  V,  14-16,  and 
tritemorion,  PI.  V,  17. 

Rev.  details:  15,  olive  wreath  on  helmet ; 16,  wheel,  countermark  on  helmet;  17, 
olive  spray  in  field. 

II.  Similar  head,  more  advanced  style ; border  of  dots.  Rev.  Similar.  PI.  V, 
18-27. 

Denominations : drachms,  PI.  V,  18-23,  and  obols,  PI.  V,  24-27. 

Rev.  details  in  lower  r.  field:  18,  olive  spray;  19,  x ; 20,  amphora;  22,  cadu- 
cous; 25,  I ; 26,  f ; rev.  details  on  helmet : 18,  serpent ; 19,  25,  26,  olive  wreath. 

Group  B.  c.  400-300  B.c. 

I.  Archaistic  Janiform  head  with  round  ear-ring  and  diadem.  Rev.  AAM,  AAMY, 
AAMYA  Athena  head  in  Corinthian  helmet  r.  in  circular  incuse.  PL  VI,  1-21. 

Denominations  : tetrobols  and  diobols  (PL  VI,  1,  triobol).  Dr.  Gaebler  publishes 
also  a drachm,  Nomisma  XII,  PL  II,  1 ; an  obol,  PL  2;  and  a tritemorion,  PL  II,  3. 

Obv.  details:  1,  border  of  dots;  11,  dolphin  to  1.  on  neck;  12-14,  dolphin  to  r. 
on  neck ; 15,  0EO;  16,  lAO ; 17,  18,  KPI  on  neck ; 21,  later  style  with  drop  ear-ring. 

Rev.  details  on  helmet : 5,  17,  18,  olive  wreath  ; rev.  details  in  field  : 9,  ivy  leaf ; 
10,  serpent ; 17,  18,  kantharos ; 19,  fly.  « 

II.  Similar  head,  not  archaistic.  Rev.  AAM;  helmet  usually  crested.  PL  VI, 
22-32. 

Denomination : tetrobols. 

Obv.  details : 22,  pendant  ear-ring  and  necklace.  ' 

Rev.  details:  23-25,  half-Pegasos  on  helmet;  28-32,  serpent  on  helmet;  31,  star 
in  field  ; 32,  grapes  in  field. 

III.  Head  of  Athena  in  crested  Corinthian  helmet  r.  Rev.  AAM  Forepart  of 
Pegasos  r. ; below,  ear  of  corn.  PL  VI,  33-35. 

Denomination : tetrobols. 

IV.  Apollo  head  r.  Rev.  AAM  Half-Pegasos  r.  PL  VI,  36-39. 

Denomination : diobols. 

Rev.  symbols  : 36,  dolphin  ; 37,  mouse  ; 38,  bee  ; 39,  helmet. 

V.  Zeus  head  r.  Rev.  AAM  Half-Pegasos  r.  PL  VI,  40. 


The  Gold  Statees  op  Lampsakos 


55 


THE  HALF-PEGASOS  TYPES 

The  silver  coinage  of  the  half~Pegasos  types  is  very  scanty  and  rather 
difficult  of  attribution.  Two  coins  in  the  Paris  collection,  Traite,  pi.  xiv,  13 
and  17,  should  not  be  given  to  this  mint  on  account  of  the  style  of  the  obverse 
and  reverse.  The  half-horse  of  No.  13  of  the  Traite  is  very  similar  to  that 
of  coins  assigned  by  Svoronos  (L’Hellenisme  primitif  de  la  Macedoine,  pi.  xiv, 
16  and  17)  to  the  Crestonians  of  primitive  Paionia,  while  the  incuse  squares 
of  both  Nos.  13  and  16  of  the  Traite  also  resemble  the  Paionian  coins  (Svoro- 
nos, pi.  xiv,  16  and  17.)  The  small  coin  No.  15  of  the  Traite,  the  same  as 
No.  7 of  our  Plate  V which  has  three  globules  around  the  half-horse,  is 
uncertain,  and  No.  17  of  the  Traite,  with  the  Satyr’s  head  in  the  incuse 
is  certainly  not  Lampsakene.  The  London  coin,  British  Museum  Catalogue 
Mysia,  pi.  xviii,  6,  similar  to  a piece  in  the  Cambridge  collection,  may  not 
belong  to  our  mint,  as  the  incuse  is  of  a different  design. 

The  other  coins  of  PI.  V from  the  Paris  and  London  collections,  and 
PI.  V,  1,  from  the  Newell  collection  are  all  surely  of  Lampsakos  with  the 
possible  exception  of  PI.  V,  7,  as  above  indicated.  They  represent  three 
different  denominations,  the  didrachm,  PI.  V,  4,  5,  the  tetrobol,  PI.  V,  1-3, 
and  the  diobol,  PI.  V,  6,  of  the  same  standard  which  was  applied  to  the 
striking  of  the  contemporary  electrum  coinage,  which  is  called  by  Babelon, 
“Phocaic  reduced.”  Dr.  Gaebler  separates  the  half-Pegasos  issues  into 
two  groups,  an  earlier,  comprising  all  the  smaller  denominations  which  he 
calls  diobols  and  obols  (but  which  are  really  tetrobols  and  diobols),^  of  the 
local  Lampsakene  electrum  standard,  and  a later  issue,  including  the  larger 
denomination,  the  two  didrachms,  PL  V,  4,  5 (Gaebler,  Group  I,  No.  10) 
of  which  nine  examples  are  known,  and  a small  unique  piece  in  Berlin 
(Gaebler,  Group  I,  No.  11)  which  he  regards  as  struck  on  the  Milesian 
standard,  which  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  electrum  staters  of  Lampsakos 
with  the  palmette  symbol,  the  supposed  Ionian  Revolt  staters.  These 
staters  have  been  discussed  earlier  in  this  paper,  and  reasons  given  for 
questioning  the  Ionian  Revolt  theory.  Stylistically,  at  least,  the  didrachms 
appear  to  the  writer  as  more  closely  allied  to  the  undoubted  electrum  staters 
of  Lampsakos,  note  particularly  the  stater  figured  on  PI.  I,  11,  of  the  Elec- 
trum Coinage.^  In  general  there  seems  to  be  no  cogent  reason  for  assuming 

1 Compare  Babelon’s  table  of  weights  for  the  Lampsakene  electrum  standard  as  applied  to  silver  in 
the  Traite  II,*  p.  343,  which  is  as  follows : tetradrachm  (electrum  stater),  15.36  gr.;  didrachm,  7.68  gr.; 
drachm,  3.84  gr.;  tetrobol,  2.65  gr.;  diobol,  1.28  gr.  There  is  evidently  a miscalculation  on  Dr.  Gaebler’s 
part  when  he  writes  (Nomisma  XII,  p.  4)  of  a diobol  of  c.  2.57  and  an  obol  of  c.  1.28  gr.  The  writer  fully 
agrees  however  with  Dr.  Gaebler’s  deduction  that  this  silver  coinage  follows  the  same  standard  as  the  local 
Lampsakene  electrum  “Phocaic  reduced,”  and  not  the  Milesian  as  given  on  p.  19  of  Electrum  Coinage. 

’ A detail,  but  an  important  one,  is  the  fact  that  these  didrachms  show  a rather  larger  middle  section 
of  the  near  wing  of  the  Pegasos,  a characteristic  of  the  regular  Lampsakene  staters  of  the  archaic  period. 


56 


The  American  Journal  op  Numismatics 


a change  of  monetary  standard 'for  the  ilidrachm  issues,  although  it  must 
be  adniitted  that  the  nine  examples  known  are  all  under  weight  - — on  the 
theory  that  they  belong  to  the  usual  Lampsakene  standard.  The  Lamp- 
sakene  standard  would  require  a didrachm  of  7.68  gr.  while  the  Milesian 
didrachm  would  call  for  one  weighing  7.07  gr.,  both  of  which  weights  exceed 
those  of  the  extant  examples  (see  Gaebler,  loc.  cit.,  p.  5)  which  range  from 
6.95  to  6.66  gr.  But  the  reason  underlying  the  assumption  of  a change  of 
standard  is  entirely  bound  up  with  the  attribution  to  Lampsakos  of  the 
electrum  stater  coinage  of  the  palmette  class.  If  the  Ionian  Revolt  theory 
is  proved  to  be  correct,  then  these  didrachms  may  be  the  subsidiary  silver 
coinage  which  goes  with  the  electrum  coinage,  and  the  difference  in  style 
between  these  didrachms  and  the  Revolt  staters  may  be  accounted  for  by 
the  hypothesis  that  the  silver  pieces  were  struck  in  the  home  mint  and  the 
electrum  staters  issued  at  the  common  mint  of  the  League  of  Ionian  cities 
which  joined  in  the  Revolt. 


The  Gold  Statees  op  Lampsakos 


57 


THE  JANIFORM  HEAD  TYPES 
Group  A.  c.  500-470  b.c. 

The  Janiform  head  series  began  to  be  issued  about  500  b.c.  The 
closest  parallel  to  these  double  heads  on  which  the  hair  is  rendered  in  rows 
of  dotted  lines  on  the  crown  and  in  pearl-like  strands  falling  straight  over 
the  forehead  is  to  be  found  in  the  Arethusa  head  on  the  early  tetradrachms 
of  Syracuse  (British  Museum  Catalogue  Sicily,  p.  146,  No.  4;  Head,  Coinage 
of  Syracuse,  pi.  i,  3;  Babelon,  Traite,  pi,  ixxiv,  7).  These  latter  coins,  it  is 
true,  are  always -given  to  the  period  485  b.c.  by  our  chief  authorities  (British 
Museum  Catalogue  Sicily,  p.  146;  Head,  Coinage  of  Syracuse,  p.  7,  and 
Hist.  Num.,^  p.  172;  A.  Evans,  Contributions  to  Sicilian  Numismatics, 
Num.  Chron.,  1894,  p.  197f;  Babelon,  Traite  II,’-  p.  1519-20).^  But  even  a 
cursory  study  of  the  archaic  coinage  of  Syracuse  will  suffice  to  throw  doubt 
upon  this  date  long  accepted  as  definitely  established.  The  first  objection 
to  it  lies  in  the  consideration  that  there  would  be  far  too  brief  an  interval 
then  remaining  between  these  very  archaic  issues  and  the  Demareteion, 
c.  479  B.c.,^  which  breaks  forever  and  finally  with  archaic  tradition  in  the 
treatment  of  the  hair  and  eyes.  And,  in  support  of  this  theoretical  inference 
as  to  the  length  of  time  required  for  the  development  in  style  from  the 
archaic  tetradrachms  of  the  type  showm  in  British  Museum  .Catalogue 
Sicily,  p.  146,  No.  4,  to  the  Demareteion  type,  there  is  extant  a very  abun- 
dant series  of  archaic  tetradrachms  in  numerous  varieties  illustrating  every 
shade  of  progress  from  the  early  archaic  to  the  transitional  style,  and  these 
numerous  issues  constitute  the  main  practical  proof  of  the  longer  interval 
which  must  have  intervened.  It  is  impossible  to  crowd  all  these  different 
types  of  heads  into  the  space  of  some  six  years.  In  order  to  surmount  this 
difficulty,  it  has  been  proposed  to  place  these  too-abundant  issues  which 
are  at  once  felt  to  be  superfluous  for  the  short  period  to  which  they  have 

1 This  universally  accepted  date  is  based  solely  on  R.  S.  Poole’s  conjecture  (published  in  an  article 
entitled,  “On  the  use  of  the  coins  of  Camarina,  etc.,’’  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Literature,  X, 
pt.  3)  that  the  Victory  figure  was  first  placed  over  the  quadriga  of  the  obverse  type  of  the  earliest  Syracusan 
tetradrachms  by  Gelon,  tyrant  of  Syracuse,  485-478  b.c.  in  commemoration  of  his  four-horse  chariot  victory 
won  at  Olympia  in  488  b.c. 

2 Evans,  loc.  dt,  assumed  488  b.c.,  the  date  of  Gelon’s  Olympic  victory,  to  be  the  date  of  issue  of 
the  earliest  Syracusan  coins  with  the  Victory  figure,  but  Gelon  was  not  master  of  Syracuse  until  485  b.c. 
Hence  the  interval  between  the  earliest  tetradrachms  supposedly  issued  by  Gelon  and  the  Demareteion 
would  be  only  six  years  instead  of  ten  as  stated  by  Evans  (see  Holm,  Geschichte  Siciliens,  III,  p.  570). 


58 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


been  given,  in  the  period  immediately  after  the  Demareteiond  Not  all  of 
our  numismatic  authorities,  however,  have  adopted  Evans’  conclusions  in 
their  entirety,  although  Babelon  has  arranged  the  archaic  Syracusan  coinage 
according  to  this  scheme  in  his  Traite,  pis.  Ixxiv-lxxv,  thereby  placing  even 
tetradrachms  with  ? in  the  ethnic  after  480  b.c.^  In  the  British  Museum 
Catalogue  Sicily,  Head’s  Coinage  of  Syracuse  and  Du  Chastel’s  Syracuse 
(all  written  before  Evans  expressed  these  views)  and  in  the  Jameson  Cat- 
alogue, a recent  work,  these  archaic  tetradrachms  are  correctly  arranged  as 
'preceding  the  Demareteion,  but  the  series  is  always  dated  as  commencing 
in  485  B.c. 

Certain  writers,  Gardner,  Num.  Chron.,  1876,  p.  7,  and  Headlam, 
op.  cit,  1908,  p,  9,  have  found  an  additional  reason  for  supporting  the 
Gelonian  date  by  pointing  out  that  the  obverses  of  the  early  coins  of  Leontini 
and  Gela  bear  the  same  type  as  that  of  Syracuse,  a quadriga  crowned  by 
Nike,  and  that  this  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  assumption  that  these 
pieces  were  issued  when  the  three  cities  were  under  the  same  dynastic  control 
which  could  only  have  been  under  Gelon. 

According  to  Gardner,  Gelon  introduced  the  quadriga  type  on  the  coins 
of  Leontini  and  Gela  after  his  victory  in  488,  and  subsequently,  after  485, 
on  the  coins  of  Syracuse.  Headlam  regards  the  quadriga  on  the  coinages 
of  these  three  cities  as  simultaneously  introduced  after  485  b.c.  Either 
theory  calls  for  a coinage  in  the  three  cities  about  con  temporaneous . With- 
out entering  too  deeply  into  the  intricacies  of  this  question,  the  writer 
believes  that  it  can  be  shown  that  the  quadriga  types  of  both  Gela  and 
Syracuse  are  considerably  more  ancient  than  those  of  Leontini,  that  it 


* Evans,  loc.  cit.,  p.  199,  originated  this  theory  that  the  tetradrachms  which  form  an  overwhelming 
proportion  of  the  early  currency  of  Syracuse,  which,  he  admits,  seem  at  first  sight  much  more  archaic  than 
the  Demareteion  (Du  Chastel,  Syracuse,  pi.  i,  5 f,  and  pi.  ii,  13-22)  were  a wholesale  coinage  struck  after 
480  B.c.  from  the  booty  won  by  the  victory  of  Himera,  on  such  a vast  scale  that  second-rate  die-cutters 
must  have  been  employed,  resulting  in  a “wholesale  artistic  debasement”  of  the  coinage;  so  that  what  at 
first  sight  appears  more  archaic,  in  this  case  is  simply  rude.  This  argument  is  a patent  case  of  special 
pleading  to  solve  what  would  be  undoubtedly  a first-class  numismatic  puzzle,  an  attempt  to  date  the  earliest 
Victory  tetradrachms  in  485  b.c.  and  then  to  connect  the  Demareteion  as  the  next  issue  in  sequence,  and 
squeeze  all  the  remaining  archaic  coinage  into  the  same  general  period  as  the  Demareteion.  It  has  not  been 
refuted  hitherto,  so  far  as  the  writer  is  aware,  and  has  been  reflected  in  later  writings,  as  Headlam,  Some 
Notes  on  Sicilian  Coins,  Num.  Chron.,  1908,  p.  10  f.  This  latter  article,  too,  labors  under  the  theory  of 
the  Gelonian  origin  of  the  Victory  type  on  the  obverse.  It  was  onlj"^  a chance  detail,  the  occurrence  of  the 
fine  circular  line  around  the  Arethusa  head  of  the  Demareteion  which  led  Evans  to  connect  the  latter  so 
closely  with  the  early  tetradrachms  on  which  this  circle  also  occurs,  and  which  Evans  correctly  derived  from 
the  circular  inset  of  the  incuse  reverse  (Head,  Coinage  of  Syracuse,  pi.  i).  The  Demareteion  artist  hap- 
pened to  revive  this  archaic  detail,  but  of  course  it  does  not  follow  that  the  Demareteion  is  an  issue  con- 
secutive upon  the  earliest  types. 

2 On  p.  1533  of  the  Trait6  II,*  Babelon  remarks  that  some  of  the  archaic  tetradrachms  which  he  has 
placed  after  the  Demareteion  are  anterior  to  it,  but  that  in  general  they  are  almost  contemporaneous  with  it. 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


59 


would  be  very  difficult  to  select  the  coins  which  Gelon  is  supposed  to  have 
had  struck  in  these  cities  at  about  the  same  time.  If,  however,  a type 
borrowed  from  Syracuse  had  appeared  on  the  coinage  of  either  or  both  of 
the  other  two  cities  of  apparently  contemporaneous  style  in  both  or  all 
three  cases,  and  of  Gelon’s  period,  we  might  assume  this  as  evidence  of 
Gelonian  control  which  is  a matter  of  historical  record  for  these  three 
mints.  Such  an  example  of  Gelonian  influence  may  be  found  in  the  case 
of  a tetradrachm  of  Leontini  which  does  bear  a peculiarly  Syracusan  type, 
the  Arethusa  head,  otherwise  foreign  to  the  usual  quadriga  and  lion’s  head 
types  (Babelon,  Traite,  pi.  Ixii,  9;  British  Museum  Catalogue  Sicily,  No.  9). 
If  now  we  search  in  the  Syracusan  series  for  the  type  most  nearly  corres- 
ponding to  this  coin  of  Leontini,  we  shall  discover  just  which  coins  of 
Syracuse  may  properly  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  Gelon’s  period,  for  it 
is  the  most  natural  inference  in  the  world  to  account  for  the  intrusion  of 
a Syracusan  coin  type  at  Leontini  at  this  period  as  due  to  Gelonian  influence. 
A coin  which  is  generally  similar  is  that  shown  on  Babelon’s,  pi.  Ixxv,  12, 
although  it  may  be  somewhat  earlier  than  the  tetradrachm  of  Leontini,  as 
the  hair  over  the  forehead  is  still  represented  by  dotted  lines.  Somewhat 
closer  is  a tetradrachm  formerly  in  the  Sandeman  Collection,  No.  297, 
with  the  hair  executed  in  fine  wavy  lines.  The  head  on  both  these  coins 
of  Syracuse  is  rather  small  for  the  flan,  as  is  the  case  at  Leontini,  and,  in 
the  sequence  of  types  as  worked  out  by  Babelon  and  others,  these  Syracusan 
pieces  belong  quite  well  along  in  the  series.  Hence,  if  the  whole  group  of 
archaic  tetradrachms  be  placed  in  the  period  preceding  the  Demareteion 
as  the  writer  contends  is  correct,  these  types  with  the  small  head  would  be  not 
far  antecedent  to  the  Demareteion  types.  They  therefore  could  easily  fall 
within  the  period  of  Gelon,  485-478  b.c.  This  parallelism  helps  to  strengthen 
our  argument,  for  it  throws  back  the  earliest  tetradrachms  with  the  Victory 
figure,  which  the  writer  maintains  cannot  be  Gelon’s  coinage,  to  a date  at 
least  a decade  previous,  as  a detailed  study  of  the  sequence  of  the  abundant 
archaic  issues  will  demonstrate. 

The  chariot  type  alone  without  the  Victory  floating  above  it  which 
occurs  on  the  first  Syracusan  coins  of  the  period  of  the  landed  aristocracy, 
the  Geomori,  of  the  latter  Sixth  Century  must  have  been  selected  as  an 
agonistic  coin  type  by  the  rulers  who  patronized  the  sport  before  the  days 
of  Gelon  I,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  the  Victory  figure  could  not  have 
been  introduced  previoUb  to  this  tyrant.  Anaxilas,  tyrant  of  Rhegium, 
placed  a biga  without  the  Victory  figure  on  his  coins  to  record  his  Olympic 
victory  with  the  mule  team  (Babelon,  Traite  II, ^ p.  1470,  pi.  Ixxi,  13). 
That  Gelon  introduced  the  Victory  figure  into  the  type  is  in  absolute  dis- 


60 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


accord  with  the  numismatic  facts,  as  has  been  shown,  since  there  would 
then  be  on  the  one  hand  a period  of  more  than  fifteen  years  between  the 
first  issues  of  Syracuse,  quadriga  and  incuse  type,  and  the  supposed  Gelonian 
issues  of  485  b.c.,  with  the  scantiest  possible  coinage  extant  to  fill  in  this 
gap,  while  as  stated  for  the  interval  between  485  b.c.  and  479  b.c.  when  the 
Demareteion  was  struck,  there  would  be  a superabundance  of  coins  which 
cannot  be  condensed  into  this  short  period.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable 
that  the  Victory  figure  types  began  about  500-495  b.c.  where  numismatists, 
if  guided  only  by  style,  would  naturally  have  placed  them.^ 

The  writer  has  dealt  elsewhere  (Electrum  Coinage,  p.  22)  with  Babelon’s 
theory  that  the  Janiform  head  types  commenced  to  be  struck  at  Lampsakos 
during  the  period  513-511  b.c.  at  about  which  time  the  same  type  makes 
its  appearance  on  a trihemiobol  of  Athens  (Babelon,  Traite  IP,  p.  151f). 
This  theory  that  an  alliance  between  Hippias,  tyrant  of  Athens  and  Hip- 
poklos,  tyrant  of  Lampsakos,^  is  indicated  by  the  contemporaneous  issue 
of  coins  with  a similar  type,  supposedly  borrowed  by  Athens  from  Lampsa- 
kos, is  upset  by  the  fact  that  at  Lampsakos  there  is  no  coinage  with  the 
Janiform  head  type  as  archaic  in  style  as  that  of  the  Athenian  piece  bear- 
ing this  head,  and  that  the  Lampsakene  silver  coinage  of  this  period  is 
the  half-Pegasos  coinage  (PL  V,  1-7)  which  was  struck  as  the  “ small 
change”  of  the  electrum  stater  issues. 

Turning  now  to  the  Janiform  head  types  of  more  developed  style, 
PL  V,  18-27,  there  is  shown  a marked  relaxation  from  the  strict  severity 
of  the  earlier  coins,  PL  V,  8-17  which  we  have  just  dated  in  the  decade 
500-490  B.c.  The  coins  on  PL  V,  18-19,  exhibit  the  same  stage  of  develop- 
ment as  the  Athenian  tetradrachms  of  the  style  following  immediately 
upon  that  of  the  dekadrachms  (British  Museum  Catalogue  Attica,  pi.  iii. 
Class  a).  The  expression  of  the  head  (or  heads)  is  milder,  the  front  hair 
is  rendered  by  wavy  bands  that  suggest  the  Athenian  coinage.  Unfor- 
tunately we  have  to  wrestle  here  again  with  the  dating  problem  as  our 
authorities  are  at  variance  as  to  the  date  of  issue  of  the  dekadrachms. 
Dr.  Gaebler  (Nomisma  VII,  p.  10)  uses  the  coins  of  Athens  as  a term  of 
comparison  for  these  issues  of  Lampsakos,  and  the  writer  entirely  concurs 
with  his  view  of  the  parallelism  in  style  between  the  Lampsakene  issues 
of  more  advanced  style  PL  V,  18-19,  and  the  archaic  Athenian  tetradrachms 
of  the  usual  type  with  the  olive  leaves  and  palmette  or  scroll  device  on 

* Note  Babelon’s  independent  dating  of  the  non-Victory  figure  coinage  as  before  500  b.c.,  while  all 
other  authorities  have  dated  the  coinage  as  starting  in  500  b.c. 

2 P.  N.  Ure,  The  Origin  of  Tyranny,  p.  63,  note  7,  cites  this  theory  as  numismatic  evidence  of  Hippias’ 
personal  ties  with  the  tyrant  of  Lampsakos.  Under  b his  note  should  be  amended  to  read  “ Athens,  obv. 
type  of  Lampsakos,  rev.  Athena  head.” 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


61 


the  helmet  issued  just  after  the  dekadrachms.  But  his  argument  that 
the  Athenian  dekadrachms  were  not  struck  before  480  b.c.  is  a view 
with  which  we  do  not  agree.  The  dekadrachms  are  of  such  strong  archaic 
style  that  it  would  seem  incongruous  to  associate  them  with  the  Syracusan 
dekadrachms,  the  Demareteia,  for  which  we  have  a positive  date  founded 
on  historical  evidence.  Dr.  Gaebler  points  out  forcibly . the  strong 
evidence  afforded  by  a group  of  archaic  Athenian  tetradrachms,  none  of 
which  are  published  in  the  British  Museum  Catalogue  nor  in  Babelon’s 
Traite  (Gaebler,  op.  cit,  pi.  i,  34-37 ; Svoronos,  Tresor  des  Monnaies 
d’Athenes,  pi.  8,  1-6)  which  antedate  the  dekadrachms  of  Athens,  as  the 
dotted  hair  over  the  forehead,  the  more  primitive  eye  and  profile  convincingly 
prove,  and  which  nevertheless  show  the  olive  leaves  on  the  helmet.  If  this 
latter  decoration  contains  a reference  to  the  victory  at  Marathon,  as  has 
generally  been  thought  in  regard  to  the  dekadrachms,  then  these  very 
rare  early  tetradrachms  of  Athens  were  struck  soon  after  the  victory  of 
490  B.c.  Dr.  Gaebler  concludes  that  since  the  battle  of  Marathon  is  com- 
memorated by  these  tetradrachms,  the  dekadrachms  which  are  certainly 
of  later  style  must  have  been  struck  to  commemorate  Salamis.  Of  course 
it  is  only  an  inference  that  the  olive  leaves  were  placed  on  Athena’s  helmet 
to  commemorate  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  great  victories.  The  olive  is 
not  the  laurel  of  victory,  and  is  part  of  Athena’s  personal  symbolism  like 
the  owl  and  olive  which  had  previously  been  on  the  coins.  Still,  of  course, 
the  change  or  rather  modification  of  type  would  seem  to  require  an  explana- 
tion in  terms  of  an  historical  event.  But  granted  that  the  battle  of  Mara- 
thon is  celebrated  by  the  early  tetradrachms  with  the  olive  leaves  which  we 
may  assume  to  represent  a wreath  of  victory,  there  would  then  be  a gap  of 
ten  years  between  these  early  tetradrachms  and  the  dekadrachms  for  which 
there  are  no  coins  at  all  during  a period  which  is  elsewhere  as  at  Syracuse, 
characterized  by  abundant  coinage  showing  a steady  progression  from 
archaic  to  transitional  style. 

In  support  of  the  date  490  b.c.  as  opposed  to  480  b.c.,  the  find  of  100 
tetradrachms  of  Athens,  said  to  be  ‘‘of  the  early  style”  in  company  with 
300  darics  in  the  canal  of  Mt.  Athos,  supposed  to  have  been  deposited  by 
Xerxes  at  the  time  of  his  invasion  of  Greece  (Gardner,  History  of  Ancient 
Coinage,  p.  162;  Gaebler,  op.  cit.,  p.  10,  note  3),  has  been  invoked.  It  is 
pointed  out  that  in  this  find  there  was  at  least  one  Athenian  tetradrachm 
with  the  olive  leaves  on  the  helmet,  and  this  fact  has  been  regarded  as 
lending  support  to  the  date  490  b.c.^  But  this  coin  is  a late  tetradrachm  of 
the  “Athenian  imitation”  style,  probably  a Fourth  Century  Indian  imita- 

‘ Babelon,  Trait4  II‘,  p.  766. 


62 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


tion  as  would  plainly  appear  from  the  drawing  of  the  coin  in  Beule’s  Monnaies 
d’Athenes,  p.  44,  as  well  as  from  Beule’s  description  of  the  piece  on  p.  71. 
What  the  other  tetradrachms  looked  like  is  not  known,  but  there  is  no 
reason  whatever  not  to  infer  that  they  were  coins  of  the  ordinary  “olive 
wreath”  type  (British  Museum  Catalogue  Attica,  pi.  iii,  2 f),  since  the 
phrase  describing  them  as  “of  the  early  style,”  while  vague,  pretty  certainly 
indicates  this  well-known  type.  But  the  one  coin  upon  which  so  many 
writers  base  their  proof  is  of  no  value  at  all,  since,  as  Beule  showed,  it  could 
not  possibly  have  been  in  the  hoard.  So  also  the  debate  over  the  presence 
of  one  tetradrachm  of  the  “olive  wreath”  type  in  the  Akropolis  hoard  of 
1886,  supposed  to  have  been  buried  about  480  b.c.,  a coin  which  has  been 
both  refused  and  claimed  as  rightfully  belonging  to  the  original  hoard,  is 
of  no  significance,  though  Svoronos,  a champion  of  the  date  480  b.c.  for 
the  first  appearance  of  the  olive  on  the  helmet,  has  stated  that  the  coin 
showed  no  traces  of  fire  as  did  the  remainder  of  the  hoard,  and  hence  prob- 
ably did  not  belong  to  it.  According  to  our  dating,  such  a type  might 
perfectly  well  have  figured  in  the  hoard,  for  it  seems  inconceivable  that 
Athens  should  be  issuing  coins  genuinely  archaic  in  style,  like  the  deka- 
drachms  and  succeeding  tetradrachms  after  480  b.c.,  thus  lagging  so  far 
behind  Syracuse,  and  that  there  should  be  the  long  interval  between  the 
coins  of  Marathon  and  those  of  Salamis,  a ten  year  period  for  which  there 
is  no  coinage. 

The  dekadrachms  are  of  course  most  reasonably  brought  into  connec- 
tion with  a great  victory,  and  if  this,  according  to  our  thinking,  is  rather  the 
Marathonian  than  the  Salaminian,  the  early  tetradrachms  bearing  the 
olive  and  sometimes  the  scroll,  which  are  noticeably  more  archaic  than 
the  dekadrachms,  may  have  no  reference  whatever  to  Marathon. 

The  archaic  Janiform  types  at  Lampsakos  are  therefore  to  be  dated  as 
follows;  Coins  of  Severe  Archaic  Style,  PL  V,  8-17,  500-490  b.c.  ; coins  of 
Strong  Archaic  Style,  PL  V,  18,  19,  c.  490  b.c.;  coins  of  Modified  Archaic 
Style,  PL  V,  20-27,  later  than  490  b.c.  — possibly  as  late  as  470. 

THE  JANIFORM  HEAD  TYPES 
Group  B.  400-330  b.c. 

The  coins  of  the  class  shown  on  PL  VI,  1-32,  obv.  J anif orm  head,  rev. 
Athena  head  in  Corinthian  helmet,  are  dated  by  Head,  Babelon  and  Wroth 
(British  Museum  Catalogue  Mysia)  in  the  Fourth  Century,  394-330  b.c. 
Dr.  Gaebler,  however,  would  assign  the  beginning  of  this  series  to  the  first 
half  of  the  Fifth  Century.  Starting  with  the  premise  that  the  silver  coins 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


63 


on  which  the  old  chief  badge  of  Lampsakos,  the  winged  half-horse  is  intro- 
duced anew,  PI.  VI,  33-35,  must  be  later  than  the  gold  stater  coinage, 
c.  387  B.C.,  whose  reverses  bear  the  ancient  city-arms  of  the  electrum  coinage 
as  a constant  reverse  device.  Dr.  Gaebler  assumes  that  the  Janiform  head  — 
Athena  series,  PI.  VI,  1-32  ended  in  387  b.c.  He  then  works  backward  over 
the  group,  PI.  VI,  1-32,  and  taking  political  events  into  consideration  arrives 
at  the  date  470  for  the  commencement  of  the  Janiform  head  — Athena 
group  (Gaebler’s  Group  III).  This  chronological  scheme  would  place  our 
coins,  PI.  VI,  1-3,  in  the  period  464  b.c.,  date  of  Themistocles’  overlordship 
of  the  city  which  Dr.  Gaebler  indicates  was  merely  nominal,  the  city  having 
actually  entered  the  Delian  League  at  that  date,  passing  thus  from  Persian 
to  Athenian  possession.  The  coins  which  are  then  assigned  to  a still  earlier 
date  than  464  are  three  rare  pieces  not  here  represented  (Gaebler,  pi.  ii,  1-3) 
which  are  given  to  470-464  b.c.  They  bear  no  ethnic  on  the  reverse,  and 
are  stylistically  the  forerunners  of  the  series’^  shown  on  our  PI.  VI. 

The  implied  inference  in  Dr.  Gaebler’s  chronological  scheme  is  that 
once  the  half-horse  badge  became  the  regular  city  emblem  again  on  the 
gold  coinage,  c.  387  b.c.  (but  considerably  later  on  the  silver,  PI.  VI,  33-35), 
the  Janiform  head-Athena  types  were  discontinued.  In  support  of  this,  he 
points  to  a single  coin,  Athena  head  with  Attic  helmet  and  half-Pegasos 
types  {op.  cit.,  PI.  ii,  35)  of  fine  F ourth-Century  style,  comparable  to  that 
of  the  gold  staters  before  350  b.c.,  which  may  with  probability  be  referred 
to  the  years,  365-355  b.c.  This  coin  does  not  bear  any  inscription,  but  its 
Lampsakene  reverse  indicates  its  connection  with  our  mint.  It  appears 
nevertheless  to  belong  with  the  other  satrapal  silver  and  bronze  coins  of 
Orontas,  satrap  of  Mysia,  362  b.c.  It  has  no  affinity  whatsoever  with  the 
Athena  head — half-Pegasos  coins,  PI.  VI,  33-35,  which  are  much  later  in 
style.  These  latter  pieces,  as  we  hope  to  show,  were  not  struck  until  after 
330  B.c.  Dr.  Gaebler  places  them  as  late  as  300  b.c.  On  Dr.  Gaebler’s 
showing  there  would  be  but  scanty  silver  issues  from  the  Lampsakene  mint 
during  the  period  when  the  gold  staters  were  issued,  only  the  Athena  head 
triobol  struck  under  Orontas,  just  mentioned.  But  does  the  style  of  the 
coins  shown  on  PI.  VI,  1-32,  warrant  our  placing  them  all  before  387  b.c. 
and  the  earliest  before  the  middle  of  the  Fifth  Century? 

The  Janiform  heads  on  the  coins,  PI.  VI,  1-21,  are  consciously  archaistic 
in  the  retention  of  the  archaic  style  of  treatment  of  the  hair,  but  the  Athena 
heads  were  surely  executed  in  the  period  of  advanced  art  of  the  Fourth 
Century. , The  most  obvious  types  with  which  to  compare  these  reverses 
are  the  Athena  heads  on  the  coins  of  Corinth  and  the  result  of  this  collocation 
is  to  demonstrate  that  the  Lampsakene  coins,  in  spite  of  the  deliberate 

* See  further  the  Addendum  on  p.  77. 


64 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


archaism  of  their  obverses,  are  really  most  closely  akin  to  the  Corinthian  sta- 
ters of  the  period,  400-338  b.c.  The  style  of  the  Athena  heads  of  the  coins 
figured  on  PL  VI,  1 f . would  seem  to  make  it  impossible  to  place  the  beginning 
of  our  series  as  early  as  460  b.c.,  the  date  of  the  severe  early  fine  style  repre- 
sented by  the  Corinthian  coins  shown  in  Oman’s  paper  on  the  Fifth- 
Century  Coins  of  Corinth  (Corolla  Numismatica,  pi.  xi,  2,  3).  Furthermore, 
the  later  issues  of  the  Janiform  head— Athena  group  on  which  the  helmet  of 
Athena  is  crested  and  bears  various  symbols,  chiefly  the  coiled  serpent, 
PI.  VI,  28-32,  which  Dr.  Gaebler  places  between  405  and  387  b.c.,  seem  to 
the  writer  most  palpably  later  than  387  b.c.  They  are  not  so  very  f ar  removed 
from  the  coins  on  which  the  helmeted  Athena  head  becomes  the  obverse  type. 
Now,  the  type  of  crest  which'  appears  on  these  latter  coins  with  Athena- 
head  obverse  and  half-Pegasos  reverse,  PL  VI,  33-35,  is  that  characteristic  of 
the  staters  of  Alexander  the  Great.  We  note  that  a similar  comparison  has 
been  made  by  Dr.  Lederer  in  his  paper,  Ein  Goldstater  Alexanders  des 
Grossen  (Zeit.  f.  Num.,  xxxiii,  Sonderabdruck.  Nachtrage.) , “ Der  Athenakopf 
dieser  letzteren  Munzen  scheint  mir  aber  dem  Stile  nach  bereits  der  Zeit 
Alexanders  des  Grossen  anzugehoren  und  von  seinen  Goldstateren  beein- 
flusst,  wie  so  manche  Munzen  anderer  griechischen  Stadte.”  The 
particular  pieces  to  which  Dr.  Lederer  here  refers,  PL  VI,  28-32,  may  perhaps 
be  influenced  by  the  type  of  Alexander’s  gold  staters,  but  it  seems  extremely 
probable  that  the  peculiarly  Alexandrine  type  of  helmet  on  the  coins  imme- 
diately following,  PL  VI,  33-35,  was  imitated  from  the  staters  of  Alexander. 
The  Apollo  heads,  PL  VI,  36-39,  are  very  likely  to  have  been  suggested  by 
the  small  gold  and  silver  coins  of  Philip  II,  359-336  b.c.,  as  Dr.  Gaebler  sug- 
gests (op.  cit.,  p.  28),  and  antedate  the  issues  shown  on  PL  VI,  33-35. 

Adramytion  and  lolla  in  Mysia  issued  bronze  coins  with  a reverse  type, 
forepart  of  Pegasos,  beneath  which  an  ear  of  corn  to  the  right  (Antike 
Munzen  Mysiens,  pi.  i,  1,  and  pi.  x,  12-14).  These  are  dated  by  von  Fritze 
about  the  middle  of  the  Fourth  Century,  and  this  type  has  apparently  been 
copied  at  Lampsakos  on  the  Athena-head-half-Pegasos  coins,  PL  VI,  33-35, 
which  we  should  be  inclined  to  date  towards  the  end  of  the  Fourth  Cen- 
tury. Dr.  Gaebler  dates  these  pieces  about  300  b.c.  at  the  earliest,  and 
since,  as  he  points  out,  they  are  over-struck  on  flans  of  the  preceding 
Janiform  head  types,  it  would  seem  most  reasonable  to  connect  them  with 
the  earlier  series  rather  closely;  although  the  style  of  both  obverse  and  reverse 
is  decidedly  inferior  to  that  of  the  latest  examples  of  the  Janiform  head 
group.  This  is  all  the  more  reason  why  the  Janiform  head-Athena  types 
should  not  be  considered  as  ceasing  in  387  b.c.,  but  should  be  brought  well 
down  below  that  date.  Dr.  Gaebler  while  placing  the  types  with  obverse. 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


.65 


Athena  head  in  Corinthian  helmet,  about  300  b.c.,  regards  the  Apollo  head 
coinage  as  earlier.  Both  types  he  considers,  as  does  the  writer,  to  be  in- 
fluenced by  the  types  of  Alexander’s  and  Philip’s  coins.  The  half-Pegasi 
of  the  Apollo  head  coins  are  unquestionably  better  in  style  than  those  of 
the  Athena  head  coins,  and  they  are  consequently  considerably  earlier  than 
the  latter. 

In  conclusion,  then,  on  grounds  of  style,  only  a few  of  the  Janiform- 
Athena  head  coins  of  the  new  style  can  be  dated  in  the  Fifth  Century,  and  the 
mint  of  Lampsakos  must  be  assumed  to  have  been  almost  quiescent  during 
the  period  c.  470-400  b.c.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Fourth  Century  witnessed 
a fairly  abundant  and  continuous  series  of  issues  with  native  types  down 
to  about  330  b.c.,  the  approximate  date  of  the  introduction  of  Alexandrine 
coinage  at  Lampsakos.  The  Athena  head  coins,  PI.  VI,  33-35,  were  doubt- 
less struck  after  the  Alexandrine  types  had  been  introduced. 

ALEXANDRINE  COINAGE 
First  Series,  c.  330-302  b.c. 

Staters,  tetradrachms  and  drachms 

The  Lampsakene  gold  stater  coinage  had  ceased  at  about  330  b.c.,  and 
most  of  the  silver  issues,  as  we  have  seen,  came  to  an  end  at  the  same  time.^ 
When  Alexander  crossed  the  Hellespont  in  334,  Lampsakos  was  spared  from 
destruction  through  the  personal  intervention  of  Anaximenes,  one  of  her 
citizens,  who  persuaded  Alexander  to  be  merciful  (Droysen,  Hist,  de 
Fhellenisme,  I,  p.  139).  Shortly  after  330  b.c.  Lampsakos  began  the  issue 
of  staters,  tetradrachms  and  drachms  of  Alexandrine  types.^  Many  of 
these  coins  lack  the  half-Pegasos  mint-mark,  but  have  been  attributed  to 
Lampsakos  on  other  grounds.®  Only  coins  of  later  date,  Muller’s  Class  VI, 
of  the  style  of  his  Nos.  915-917,  bearing  the  Lampsakene  mint-mark,  will 
be  here  treated  in  detail.  When  the  half-horse  is  employed  on  the  drachms 
of  the  earlier  Fourth  Century  staters,  it  would  seem  to  be  a specially  chosen 


* Exceptional  silver  issues  of  much  later  date  are  the  coins  figured  on  PI.  IX,  32,  33,  which  are  dis- 
cussed below  with  the  bronze  coinage. 

^ Dr.  Gaebler  (op.  cit.,  p.  29)  has  attributed  a selection  of  staters  and  drachms  bearing  the  half-Pegasos 
symbol  from  the  list  of  Muller  (Num.  d’ Alexandre  le  Grand,  Nos.  602-619,  Incerti  Macedonian,  etc.)  to 
Lampsakos  in  the  Fourth  Century.  M filler’s  Nos.  912-913,  drachms  with  the  monograms  M and  M 
which  Muller  placed  in  his  Class  VI,  belong  among  the  earlier  issues.  Muller  had  already  suggested  that 
Nos.  615-619  might  probably  belong  to  Lampsakos  (Num.  d’ Alexandre,  p.  196  and  235). 

’ In  Numismatic  Notes  and  Monographs,  No.  21,  Alexander  Hoards  II,  Demanhur,  Mr.  E.  T.  Newell 
has  attributed  tetradrachms  to  Lampsakos.  He  has  also  assigned  a large  number  of  other  Alexandrine 
issues  to  this  mint  during  the  Fourth  Century,  though  this  material  has  not  yet  been  published  by  him. 
Mr.  Newell  has  most  generously  placed  this  material  at  the  writer’s  disposal,  and  the  brief  sketch  of  the 
Fourth  Century  issues  here  given  owes  much  to  his  assistance. 


66 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


emblem  of  a particular  moneyer  rather  than  a true  mint-mark.  For  it  is 


found  only  occasionally,  and  is  not  universally  used  on  this  series.  In  fig.  16, 
there  is  shown  a drachm  of  the  type  of  Muller,  No.  913  (Num.  d’  Alexandre) 
bearing  the  half-Pegasos,  and  the  monogram  AA  under  the  throne.  This 
monogram  has  been  interpreted  by  Muller  (op.  dt,  p.  235)  as  containing  the 
initial  letters  of  the  ethnic  A AM.  But  since  this  is  found  also  in  the  variant 
AA,  and  since  it  alternates  with  other  Greek  letters  and  symbols  on  the 
reverses  of  the  drachms,  it  probably  should  be  regarded  as  a private  mark. 
These  drachms  were  struck  about  330-302  b.c.,  and  are  considerably  earlier 
in  style  than  the  Alexandrine  coinage  consisting  of  gold  staters  and  silver 
tetradrachms  which  regularly  bear  the  mint-mark  of  the  city,  which  will  be 
discussed  below.  From  about  330  b.c.  to  302  b.c.,  when  Lysimachos  gained 
control  of  the  city,  Lampsakos  probably  continued  to  issue  Alexandrine 
coinage  more  or  less  uninterruptedly.  This  coinage  was  a regal  coinage 
begun  by  Alexander  and  continued  after  his  death, 

ALEXANDRINE  COINAGE  OF  LYSIMACHOS 

302-281  B.c. 

Staters  and  drachms 

Lysimachos  at  first  struck  drachms  at  Lampsakos  with  the  types  and 
name  of  Alexander,  bearing  his  own  personal  emblem,  the  fore-part  of  a 
lion  beneath  the  half-Pegasos,  PL  VII,  l,(|oP,  under  the  throne,  Rome, 
Museo  delle  Terme) . This  issue  would  most  naturally  be  placed  in  the 
early  period  of  his  tenure  of  Lampsakos,  perhaps  in  302  b.c.,  when  he  first 
gained  the  city  (Niese,  Geschichte  der  Griechischen  und  Makedonischen 
Staaten,  I,  p.  342)  or  after  the  battle  of  Ipsos  in  301  b.c.  when  Lampsakos 
was  definitely  alloted  to  Lysimachos  {ibid.,  p.  352).  The  name  of  Alexander 
still  continues  to  be  used  on  this  drachm  although  Lysimachos  had  adopted 
the  royal  title  some  years  previously,  i.e.,  306  b.c.  Drachms  of  Alexan- 
drine types  but  with  BA5IAEQS  AY^IMAXOY  and  the  badge  of  Lampsakos 
together  with  Lysimachos’  own  personal  badge,  PI.  VII,  2 (Muller,  Die 
Munzen  des  Konigs  Lysimachus,  No.  24)  have  the  symbol,  a torch,  beneath 
the  throne,  and  the  inscription  AYSIMAXOY  below  and  upside  down  (r.  to 
1.).  A stater  in  the  British  Museum,  PI.  VII,  3,  bearing  the  mint-mark 


The  Gold  Statees  of  Lampsakos 


67 


of  Lampsakos,  the  half-lion  symbol  of  Lysimachos,  and  the  subsidiary 
symbol,  torch,  belongs  with  this  drachm.  Certain  drachms  with  the  half-lion 
symbol  and  the  inscription  AY5IMAXOY  similarly  arranged,  below  and 
upside  down,  but  without  the  Lampsakene  emblem  seem  also  to  belong 
here  (Amer.  Num.  Society,  with  monogram  [SI  above  the  half-lion ; Newell 
Collection,  with  dolphin  in  similar  position=Muller,  No.  25).  A drachm 
of  the  Warren  Collection  (Regling,  Sammlung  Warren,  511==Muller,  No. 
23)  is  like  the  coin  here  shown,  PI.  VII,  2,  but  lacks  the  torch  beneath  the 
throne.  This  torch  symbol  which  is  a third  adjunct  symbol  on  an  Alex- 
andrine tetradrachm  surely  of  Lampsakos,  PI.  VII,  8,  and  the  peculiar 
placing  of  the  inscription  make  it  probable  that  the  drachms  cited  above 
which  lack  the  mint-symbol  are  nevertheless  Lampsakene.  If  the  drachm 
with  monogram  fzsj  above  the  half-lion,  cited  above  (Amer.  Num.  Soc.) 
belongs  to  our  mint,  so  may  also  a gold  stater  of  Lysimachos  with  these  two 
adjunct  signs  (Newell  Collection) . All  of  the  drachms  with  the  name  of 
Lysimachos  appear  somewhat  later  than  the  one  struck  in  Alexander’s 
name.  The  above  drachms  and  the  gold  stater  are  the  only  coins  which 
we  can  at  present  assign  to  Lampsakos  under  Lysimachos.  A tetradrachm 
bearing  Lysimachian  types,  horned  Alexander  head  and  seated  Athena, 
appears  to  have  the  fore-part  of  a winged  animal  in  the  left  field,  PI.  VIII,  7 
(British  Museum)  but  the  symbol  is  partly  off  the  flan,  and  quite  uncertain, 
and  the  far  wing  of  Pegasos  which  is  regularly  visible  on  the  true  Lampsakene 
half-Pegasos  is  here  lacking.  Moreover,  the  obverse  is  from  the  same  die 
as  a tetradrachm  belonging  to  a long  series  of  Lysimachian  tetradrachms 
bearing  the  same  monogram  as  seen  on  our  reverse,  which  were  probably 
issued  at  Lysimachia  in  Thrace.  There  is  therefore  no  evidence  of  any 
tetradrachm  coinage  of  Lysimachos  at  Lampsakos  bearing  Lysimachos’ 
own  types. ^ 

ALEXANDRINE  COINAGE 

Second  Series,  280-250  b.c. 

Staters  and  tetradrachms,  municipal  issues 

After  the  death  of  Lysimachos  in  281  b.c.,  Antiochos  I (281-261  b.c.) 
ruled  the  whole  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  with  the  exception  of  the  Pergamene 
kingdom,  from  Kyzikos  to  Miletos  (Niese,  loc.  cit,  II,  p.  85),  and  also 
Troas  and  the  Hellespontine  region.  There  is  a tetradrachm  of.  Antiochos 

1 In  the  catalogue,  Die  Miinzensammlung  des  Stiftes  Schotten  in  Wien,  1920,  a tetradrachm  of 
Lysimachian  types,  p.  164,  No.  1803,  having  the  forepart  of  Pegasos  in  the  exergue  is  attributed  to  Lamp- 
sakos. We  cannot  judge  without  seeing  a reproduction  of  the  coin,  but  the  Lampsakene  symbol  does 
not  appear  in  the  exergue  on  other  types  of  Lysimachos  or  Alexander  from  our  mint. 


68 


The  American  Journac  of  Numismatics 


II,  261-246  B.C.,  or  Antiochos  Hierax  (not  Antiochos  I,  as  Muller  wrote,  Die 
Miinzen  des  Konigs  Lysimachus,  p.  16,  note  26)  which  has  been  cited  as 
bearing  the  mint-mark  of  Lampsakos,  PL  VIII,  8 (Babelon,  Rois  de  Syrie, 
No.  197).  This  tetradrachm  however,  has  as  principal  symbol  in  the  left 
field,  a long  burning  torch  which  is  usually  interpreted  as  the  mint-mark 
of  Kyzikos,  to  which  Babelon  assigns  the  coin  (Rois  de  Syrie,  p.  27,  and 
p.  Ivi;  on  p.  Ivi  Babelon  mentions  the  half-Pegasos  of  Lampsakos  as  occurring 
as  a mint-symbol  of  this  city  on  the  coinage  of  Antiochos  II  but  the  coin 
shown  on  PI.  VIII,  8,  is  the  only  one  known  to  the  writer  which  bears  the 
half-Pegasos) . But  as  this  would  constitute  the  only  case  of  the  occurrence 
of  the  mint-mark  of  Lampsakos  on  the  coins  of  the  Seleucid  Kings,  it  would 
be  very  dubious  evidence  of  the  issue  of  Seleucid  tetradrachms  at  our  mint. 

There  can  be  little  doubt,  however,  that  Lampsakos  was  subject  to  the 
early  Seleucid  rulers,  for  in  240  b.c.,  as  the  result  of  the  struggle  between 
Seleukos  II  (246-226  b.c.)  and  Antiochos  Hierax,  Lampsakos  was  obliged 
to  seek  the  protection  which  Seleukos  II  alone  could  not  provide  from 
Attalos  I of  Pergamon  (241-197  b.c.)  and  afterwards  remained  faithful  to 
this  king  (Niese,  loc.  cit,  II,  158  and  391).  Subsequently  when  Attalos 
died  in  197  b.c.,  Antiochos  III  demanded  the  return  of  Lampsakos  to  a 
condition  of  dependence  and  subjection  to  tribute  as  previously  under 
Seleucid  rule  (Niese,  loc.  cit.,  II,  p.  642).  But  Lampsakos  resisted  and  won 
her  independence  finally  by  the  help  of  the  Romans  after  the  battle  of 
Magnesia,  190  b.c.  (Niese,  loc.  cit.,  p.  669,-680,  690  and  739).  The  status 
of  Lampsakos  under  the  Seleucid  monarchs  up  to  the  time  of  Attalos  I, 
seems  to  have  varied  considerably.  At  all  events,  as  we  hope  to  be  able  to 
prove,  Lampsakos  issued  a local  Alexandrine  coinage  during  the  first  half  of 
the  Third  Century. 

Muller  mentions  three  tetradrachms  of  Alexandrine  types  bearing  the 
mint  mark  of  Lampsakos,  Nos.  915-917,  which  are  here  represented  as 
follows : PI.  VII,  9 and  10  with  K beneath  the  throne =M.  917  (British 
Museum  and  Dr.  W.  Giesecke  Coll,  from  the  same  pair  of  dies) ; PI.  VII,  11, 
with  ^ beneath  the  throne =M.  915  (Paris  Coll.) ; PI.  VII,  13,  with  Zy 
beneath  the  throne=M.  916  (P.  Saroglos,  Athens).  All  of  these  tetra- 
drachms have  the  same  monogram  ^ above  the  half-Pegasos,  with  a varia- 
tion of  £ in  the  tetradrachm  signed  ^ under  the  throne.  This  same  mono- 
gram or  its  variation  occurs  also  on  the  gold  staters  here  figured,  PI.  VII, 
4-6.  From  the  position  of  this  monogram  on  the  coins,  and  its  occurrence 
on  gold  and  silver  alike,  we  may  designate  it  the  primary  monogram.  Two 
of  the  gold  staters,  PI.  VII,  5,  6 bearing  the  primary  monogram — ±, 
bear  secondary  monograms,  K and  S\,  similar  to  those  found  on  the  tetra- 


The  Gold  Staters  op  Lampsakos 


69 


drachms,  PI.  VII,  9-11.  Again,  a gold  stater,  PI.  VII,  4,  and  a silver  tetra- 
drachm,  PI.  VII,  8,  having  the’  same  primary  monogram  and  the  half- 
Pegasos,  bear  the  same  secondary  symbol,  a torch,  which  has  already  been 
found  on  the  Alexandrine  coinage  of  Lysimachos,  PL  VII,  2. 

The  three  gold  staters  here  shown,  PL  VII,  4-6,  are  the  only  known 
issues  in  gold  of  the  mint  of  Lampsakos  during  this  period.  They  are  all 
from  the  Anadol  hoard  (q.v.  below) . As  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the 
account  written  in  Russian^  of  this  hoard,  there  were  perhaps  eight  examples 
in  the  find,  and  there  may  have  been  more  varieties  than  we  are  able  to 
show  here.  The  majority  and  perhaps  all  of  the  tetradrachms  here  published 
have  not  hitherto  been  figured.  Four  of  these  are  varieties  not  described 
by  Muller:  PL  VII,  7,  8,  12,  14.  PL  VII,  11,  is  from  the  British  Museum, 
and  has  another  variety  of  the  primary  monogram  or  symbol.  PL  VII, 
8,  is  from  Mr.  Newell’s  collection  with  secondary  symbol,  torch;  PL  VII,  12, 
is  from  the  Museo  delle  Terme,  Rome,  with  secondary  letter  A beneath 
the  throne;  PL  VII,  14,  is  a coin  from  Mr.  Newell’s  collection,  without  the 
primary  monogram,  bearing  a thyrsos  and  a new  monogram  both  above 
the  mint  symbol.  The  tetradrachms,  PL  VII,  8-12,  bear  the  primary  mono- 
gram, and  are  of  closely  similar  style.  No.  7 is  somewhat  earlier  than 
this  group.  Nos.  13  and  14  are  closer  in  style  to  the  central  group  than 
No.  7,  but  just  a degree  later. 

It  would  appear  then  that  the  above  staters  and  tetradrachms,  all  of 
which,  except  No.  14  of  PL  VII,  bear  the  same  primary  monogram  ^ or  its 
variants,  are  about  contemporaneous , and  we  are  able  to  assign  them  to 
the  first  half  of  the  Third  Century  b.c.  from  the  evidence  of  the  Anadol 
hoard  in  which  these  staters  were  found.  This  hoard  (E.  Pridik,  Bulletin 
de  la  Com.  Imper.  Arch.,  1920)  was  composed  of  gold  staters  of  an  unknown 
total  of  which  979  were  received  at  the  Hermitage,  Petrograd.  Of  this 
number  there  were  11  staters  of  Philip  II,  694  staters  of  Alexander,  21  of 
Philip  III,  250  of  Lysimachos,  2 of  Demetrios  Poliorketes,  and  1 of  Seleukos 
I.  Since  the  latest  coins  in  the  hoard  are  the  stater  of  Seleukos  I,  306-281 
B.C.,  and  those  of  Demetrios,  306-283  b.c.,  and  the  staters  of  Lysimachos 
(royal  coinage),  306-281  b.c.,  the  date  of  burial  could  not  have  been  earlier 
than  306  b.c.  But  our  concern  is  to  try  to  ascertain  the  latest  date  at  which 
the  hoard  could  have  been  deposited.  Now,  as  the  staters  of  Lysimachos 
(306-281  B.c.)  to  judge  from  the  plates,  were  all  in  mint  state,  the  hoard 
can  scarcely  have  been  deposited  so  very  many  years  later  than  281  b.c. 


' A brief  abstract  in  English  of  the  account  of  the  Anadol  hoard  was  made  for  Mr.  Newell  to  whom 
the  writer  is  indebted  for  free  access  to  his  collection  of  Alexandrine  issues  of  Lampsakos. 


70 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


unless  a more  intensive  study  of  Lysimachus’  coins  should  prove  that  some 
of  the  Lysimachian  staters  in  this  hoard  are  posthumous  issues.  A more 
careful  study  of  this  hoard  from  this  point  of  view  with  access  to  the  coins 
themselves  would  doubtless  yield  a more  exact  date.  Therefore,  the  staters 
shown  on  PI.  VII,  4-6  (Pridik,  op.  cit.,  pi.  x,  420  and  426)  would  have  to  be 
assigned  to  a period  ranging  from  c.  280  b.c.  to  250  B.C.,  the  very  latest  date  to 
which  we  should  be  inclined  to  bring  down  the  possible  burial  of  the  hoard. 
The  tetradrachms  which,  as  we  have  shown,  bear  similar  monograms,  and 
are  closely  united  inter  se  by  stylistic  similarity,  should  consequently  be 
given  to  the  same  period. 

The  period  to  which  Dr.  Gaebler  (op.  cit,  p.  32)  assigns  the  Alexandrine 
tetradrachms  noted  by  Muller  (Zoc.  cit.,  Nos.  915-917)  is  190-175  b.c.,  when 
he  assumes  that  Lampsakos,  now  a completely  free  and  autonomous  state 
after  the  defeat  of  Antiochos  at  Magnesia  in  190  b.c.  began  to  celebrate 
her  freedom  by  the  issue  of  silver  coins  of  large  denomination.  But,  while 
it  is  true  that  the  Battle  of  Magnesia  marks  an  epoch  in  the  political  history 
of  Asia  Minor  which  finds  its  numismatic  expression  in  the  revival  of  the 
long  popular  coin  types  of  the  Alexandrine  tetradrachms  issued  by  the 
newly  freed  cities  of  Ionia  (British  Museum  Catalogue  Ionia,  p.  xlviii), 
and  also  probably  of  northern  Asia  Minor,  these  Second  Century  issues  are 
no  stylistic  parallel  for  the  Lampsakene  Alexanders.  One  need  only  com- 
pare the  coins  illustrated  by  Head  in  Coins  of  the  Ancients,  pis.  36  and  48, 
to  draw  the  obvious  conclusion  that  our  Lampsakene  Alexanders  belong 
to  Head’s  Period  V,  c.  280-190  b.c.,  rather  than  to  his  Period  VI,  c.  190-100 
B.c. 

Having  now  reached  the  determination  of  the  broad  limits  of  the 
period  within  which,  on  grounds  of  style  alone  the  Alexandrine  coinage  of 
Lampsakos  must  have  been  issued,  let  us  examine  some  of  the  Third  Century 
coinages  bearing  similar  types  with  a view  to  limiting  our  Lampsakene 
Alexanders  within  narrower  dates.  The  Alexandrine  types  of  Antiochos  I 
Soter,  281-261  b.c.,  issued  early  in  his  reign  (Babelon,  Rois  de  Syrie,  pi.  iv, 
3 and  4)  are  manifestly  more  akin  to  the  posthumous  Alexandrine  issues 
of  323-307  B.c.  than  to  our  coinage.  An  Alexandrine  coinage  commencing 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  Fourth  Century  and  continuing  through  the  Third 
Century  would  be  an  ideal  term  of  comparison,  and  such  a one  fortunately 
is  available  in  the  coinage  struck  at  the  mint  of  Arados.  Happily  we  are 
aided  here  by  the  fact  that  the  latter  half  of  the  series  is  dated  coinage, 
and  therefore  such  comparisons  as  we  may  be  able  to  make,  will  have  a 
greatly  increased  value.  The  Aradian  Alexanders  are  not  illustrated  in 
any  one  work  in  a continuous  series  as  fully  as  one  could  wish  for  our  present 


The  Gold  Staters  of  Lampsakos 


71 


purpose,  but  from  the  plates  of  Rouvier’s  monograph,  Num.  des  villes  de  la 
Phenicie  (J.  I.  N.,  1900),  we  may  very  quickly  select  those  coins  most  closely 
resembling  our  Lampsakene  issues.  On  pi.  Z\  Nos.  1 and  2 are  figured 
two  Alexandrine  issues  which,  according  to  Rouvier’s  and  Hill’s  dating, 
fall  within  the  period  c.  260-240  b.c.  The  first  {op.  cit.,  pi.  Zb  1)  which 
Rouvier  dates  between  259-240  b.c.,  and  Hill,  between  261-243  b.c.,  is  no 
earlier  and  no  later  in  style  than  our  tetradrachms  which  bear  the  primary 
monogram  £ (and  variants) , PL  VII,  7-13;  while  the  second  Aradian  piece 
{op.  cit.,  pi.  Zb  2)  which  bears  the  date  “year  19”  of  the  Aradian  era  com- 
mencing in  259  B.c.  and  was  consequently  struck  in  241-240  b.c.,  is  nearer 
in  style  to  the  tetradrachm  of  Lampsakos  lacking  the  primary  monogram, 
which  seems  to  be  the  latest  issue  among  the  existing  Alexanders  from  our 
mint.  While  of  course  we  shall  not  push  our  argument  so  far  as  to  maintain 
that  our  Lampsakenes  commenced  in  260  and  ended  in  240,  we  are  certainly 
j ustified  in  deducing  that  they  fall  approximately  within  the  period  280-250 
B.c. 

The  Third  Century  issue  of  Alexandrine  staters  and  tetradrachms  of 
Sinope^  is  another  series  with  which  we  may  compare  our  Lampsakene 
coinage  of  the  same  denominations.  The  style  of  the  Sinopean  coins,  is, 
however,  peculiar  to  the  locality  of  the  Black  Sea,  so  that  the  comparison 
of  styles  is  rendered  more  difficult.  On  the  whole,  the  style  of  the  Sinopean 
Alexanders  would  seem  somewhat  later  than  the  Lampsakene.  But  exam- 
ples of  staters  of  both  mints  occurred  in  the  Anadol  hoard  so  that  the 
coinages  cannot  be  very  far  apart. 

The  tetradrachms  attributed  to  Kyzikos  in  the  Third  Century  (Head, 
Coins  of  the  Ancients,  pi.  xxxvi,  1)  are  about  contemporaneous  in  style  with 
the  Lampsakene  tetradrachms.  This  Mysian  city  (a  near  neighbor  of 
Lampsakos,  both  belonging  in  this  period  to  the  province  of  Hellespontine 
Phrygia)  first  appears  as  an  independent  community  in  218  b.c.,  but  had 
probably  obtained  full  autonomy  much  earlier  under  Antiochos  II  (Niese, 
op.  cit.,  p.  135).  Now,  considering  the  numismatic  evidence  in  full,  that 
derived  from  the  dated  Third  Century  coins  of  Arados,  and  that  derived 
from  the  analysis  of  the  Anadol  hoard,  we  are  most  naturally  led  to  the 
conclusion  that  Lampsakos  also  was  a free  city  during  the  reign  of  Antiochos 
II,  261-246  B.c.  Niese  considers  that  Antiochos  II,  pressed  by  the  political 
situation,  must  have  granted  the  Ionian  coast  cities  their  autonomy,  and 
states  that  Miletos,  Smyrna  and  Erythrai  are  definitely  known  to  have 
won  autonomy  from  Antiochos  II.  Autonomy  does  not  mean  necessarily 
freedom  from  tribute,  and  Lampsakos  may  have  possessed  this  semi- 

* Newell,  The  Alexandrine  Coinage  of  Sinope,  Amer.  Journ.  Num.,  LII  (1918). 


72 


The  American  Journal  op  Numismatics 


autonomy,  which  it  seems  probable  Kyzikos  and  many  other  powerful  cities 
of  Asia  Minor  had  obtained  from  the  Seleucid  king. 

To  this  period  then,  we  should  tentatively  assign  these  autonomous 
issues  of  the  city  of  Lampsakos.  They  are  but  the  continuation  after  an 
interval  of  the  Fourth  Century  Alexandrine  coinage  and  the  Lysimachian 
issues.  They  form  a very  compact  group  not  divisible  into  series,  and 
hence  we  cannot  (with  the  material  extant)  postulate  a very  long  period  of 
issue.  The  only  really  obscure  point  is  the  political  status  of  the  city  with 
relation  to  the  empire  of  the  Seleucids,  but  from  the  scanty  sources  at  our 
command,  the  inferences  we  have  made  seem  allowable.  The  only  other 
possible  period,  politically  considered,  when  Lampsakos  would  have  been 
able  to  strike  a sovereign  coinage  is  when  she  came  under  the  protection 
of  Attalos  I of  Pergamon,  240-197  b.c.,  but  there  is  no  other  evidence  which 
we  can  bring  forward  to  support  a thesis  that  Lampsakos  became  an  auton- 
omous city-state  under  Attalid  protection ; and,  as  we  have  seen,  the  numis- 
matic evidence  is  all  in  favor  of  our  placing  the  coinage  before  rather  than 
after  250  b.c.  The  tetradrachms  show  a considerable  laxity  of  style  as 
compared  with  the  drachms  of  Lysimachos  from  our  mint,  so  that  we  are 
more  inclined  to  date  their  issue  under  Antiochos  II  than  under  Antiochos  I. 

The  autonomy  which  Lampsakos  enjoyed  was  probably  not  very 
complete  nor  of  long  duration,  so  much  we  may  conclude  from  the  character 
of  the  issues.  Also,  as  we  already  have  stated,  under  Seleukos  II  (246-226 
B.C.),  we  find  Lampsakos  obliged  to  appeal  for  protection  to  Attalos  in 
240  B.c.  which  would  seem  to  indicate  the  precarious  nature  of  her  indepen- 
dent position. 

SILVER  TETRADRACHMS 
After  190  b.c.,  autonomous  issues 

The  issue  of  small  silver  of  local  types  at  Lampsakos  practically  ceased 
as  was  shown  above  about  330  b.c.  During  the  last  quarter  of  the  Fourth 
Century  and  the  early  Third  Century,  the  coinage  consisted  of  (1)  post- 
humous Alexandrine  types  bearing  only  occasionally  the  Lampsakene 
mint-mark  (regal)  and  (2)  of  Alexandrine  types  bearing  the  personal  emblem 
of  Lysimachos  (regal) . Before  the  middle  of  the  Third  Century  Lampsakos 
began  the  issue  of  Alexandrine  coinage  invariably  bearing  the  badge  of  the 
city  (autonomous). 

The  political  fortunes  of  Lampsakos  after  the  death  of  Alexander  in 
323  B.c.  can  only  be  traced  by  following  that  of  the  province  of  Phrygia  on 
the  Hellespont  in  which  it  was  located.  This  former  Persian  satrapy  was 
given  to  Arrhabaios  after  the  meeting  of  the  Diadochi  at  Triparadeisos  in 


The  Gold  Statees  of  Lampsakos 


73 


321  B.c,  Two  years  later  the  satrapy  was  given  to  Antigonos  who  in  315 
gave  it  to  his  nephew,  Ptolemy.  In  309-308  this  Ptolemy  was  poisoned  by 
Ptolemy  I,  of  Egypt  and  the  satrapy  given  to  Phoinix  (governor  for  Ptolemy 
I),  but  soon  it  returned  to  Antigonos’  side.  In  302  came  the  attacks  of  the 
Allied  Successors  against  Antigonos  as  a result  of  which  after  the  decisive 
contest  at  Ipsos  in  301,  Lysimachos  and  Seleukos  I were  victorious,  whence 
followed  the  assignment  of  the  satrapy  to  Lysimachos.  The  city  of  Lamp- 
sakos had  already  surrendered  in  302  to  Lysimachos’  forces.  After  Lysi- 
machos’ death  in  281,  we  have  to  assume  that  Lampsakos  was  subject  to 
Antiochos  I,  281-261,  although  we  know  no  Seleucid  coinage  struck  at  this 
mint  during  his  rule.  Under  Antiochos  II,  261-246,  were  probably  issued 
the  autonomous  coins  shown  on  PL  VII.  It  would  seem  probable  that  Lamp- 
sakos did  not  maintain  complete  autonomy  under  Seleukos  II,  246-226,  for  as 
we  have  seen  in  240  b.c.  she  appears  to  have  been  under  Seleucid  rule,  and 
after  that  date  until  190,  the  city  was  allied  with  the  Pergamene  dynasty. 
When  Antiochos  III  (222-187  b.c.)  came  into  conflict  with  Attalos  I (241-197 
B.c.)  in  the  year  218,  Lampsakos  renewed  her  pledge  of  loyalty  to  the  Atta- 
lid  monarchy,  and  later  on  was  rewarded  by  Eumenes  (197-159  b.c.)  who 
maintained  and  defended  her  independence  against  the  attacks  of  Antiochos 
III.  After  the  final  defeat  of  the  Seleucid  monarch  in  190  b.c.,  and  the 
conclusion  of  peace  in  188  b.c.,  the  city  was  recognized  as  definitely  free 
and  autonomous,  having  no  dependence  whatever  upon  the  now  powerful 
Pergamene  monarchy. 

At  this  time  began  the  issue  of  the  Priapos  tetradrachms.  This  series, 
PI.  VIII,  1-6,  begins  with  a tetradrachm  of  fairly  good  style  and  extended 
over  a period  of  some  ten  decades.  The  earliest  style  is  that  of  the  tetra- 
drachms, Nos.  1 and  2,  as  the  finer  treatment  of  the  Priapos  head  indicates. 
The  coarser  rendering  of  the  head,  the  heavier  beading  and  later  character 
of  the  inscription  of  No.  3 would  seem  to  warrant  placing  this  piece  after 
Nos.  4-6.  On  the  other  hand,  the  style  of  the  Apollo  figure  of  the  reverse 
is  quite  superior  to  that  of  the  Apollo  of  Nos.  4-6.  Still  the  Priapos  head 
of  No.  3 is  so  closely  akin  to  that  of  No.  6,  and  the  inscription  of  such  decid- 
edly later  character,  that  the  correct  order  of  the  issues  is  probably  1,  2^ 

4- 6,  3.  This  arrangement  is  supported  also  by  the  use  of  the  same  mono- 
gram on  the  coin  of  Sokrates,  No.  3,  as  on  the  issues  of  Promethion,  Nos. 

5- 6.  Hence  the  order  of  issue  by  mint-officials  would  be:  Demetrios,  son 
of  Demetrios,  Nos.  1 and  2;  Ephesios,  son  of  Theodoros,  No.  4;  Promethion, 
son  of  Lampon,  Nos.  5 and  6;  Sokrates,  son  of  Theophanes,  No.  3. 


74 


The  Ameeican  Journal  oe  Numismatics 


II  BRONZE 

A.  Fourth  and  Third  Centuries  b.c. 

This  series  begins  with  the  Janiform  head  and  Pegasos  types,  PI.  IX, 

1- 3,  parallel  in  style  with  the  silver  issues  of  the  same  types  shown  on 
PL  VI,  22-32,  and  may  therefore  be  dated  about  350  b.c.  There  follows 
next  a series,  PL  IX,  4-8,  with  a head  which  has  been  called  Nike,  with  a 
query,  in  the  British  Museum  Catalogue  Mysia.  The  earliest  of  these  heads, 
PL  IX,  4,  5,  are  akin  in  style  to  the  heads  of  the  Nike  and  Hekate  of  the 
gold  staters,  PI.  Ill,  8-10,  and  19-20,  which  were  placed  after  350  b.c.  The 
small  heads  on  the  coins,  PL  IX,  9-11,  with  laurel  wreath,  upturned  hair 
and  a small  horn  over  the  forehead,  may  represent  a river-nymph  or  lo 
(Num.  Chron.,  1917,  p.  11),  a rare  representation  in  Greek  art.  It  may  be 
noted  that  the  hair  is  treated  identically  on  these  and  the  so-called  Nike 
heads  just  preceding  them,  with  the  hair  gathered  in  a top  knot  from  which 
fly  curly  ends,  as  on  the  Hekate  head  of  the  gold  staters.  The  Athena  heads, 
PL  IX,  12  and  13,  the  Zeus  or  Poseidon  (?)  heads,  PL  IX,  19-24,  are  late 
issues  of  the  Third  Century,  as  may  easily  be  judged  from  their  style. 

B.  Second  Century  b.c.  and  Later. 

The  coins  of  the  latest  date  before  the  Imperial  Coinage  are  the  ApoUo 
head,  PL  X,  1,  surely  of  the  Second  Century,  and  the  Priapos  heads,  PL  X, 

2- 5,  all  with  AAMYAKHNQN  on  the  reverse.  The  two  Priapos  heads,  PL 
X,  6 and  7,  with  the  kantharos  reverse  and  split  inscription  A AM  {obv.) 
YA  {rev.)  are  the  crudest  appearing  of  all  these  heads,  and  are  therefore 
placed  at  the  end  of  the  autonomous  series.  In  fig.  17,  is  shown  a coin 


which  recently  came  into  the  writer’s  possession  through  the  kindness  of 
Miss  Isabel  F.  Dodd  of  Constantinople  College.  It  is  said  to  have  been 
found  near  Smyrna.  The  obverse  is  counter-marked  with  a bunch  of  grapes 
in  round  depression ; the  reverse  bears  the  inscription  AAMYA,  a monogram 
and  half-Pegasos  symbol  (cf.  Mionnet  II,  p.  562,  No.  313). 


The  Gold  Stateks  of  Lampsakos 


75 


IMPERIAL  COINAGE 

AUGUSTUS  TO  GALLIENUS 


AUGUSTUS. 

1 CGBACTOY  Laureate  head  of  Augustus,  to  r.  Rev.  AAMYAK  Priapos 

standing  1.,  r.  hand  raised.  Plate  X , 8 

2 [CGBACTOY]  AAMYAK H Similar.  Rev.  ICPA  CYNKAHTOC  Head  of 

Senate  r.  (cf.  Mionnet  II,  p.  563,  No.  319).  Plate  X,  9 

3 KAiSAP  §EB[A]  Bare  head  of  Augustus  to  r.  Rev.  AAM-YA  Bust  of 

Priapos  r.  Plate  X,  10 

TRAJAN. 

4 B.  M.  C.  80.  Rev.  Statue  of  Priapos  on  basis  to  1. 

MARCUS  AURELIUS. 

5 B.  M.  C.  81.  Rev.  Type  of  No.  20. 

6 AVT  KA-ANTQNIN  Bare  head  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  bearded  to  r.  Rev. 
AAMYAKHNQN  Herakles,  bearded  and  wearing  chiton,  standing  to  r.,  holding  in  r. 
hand  a lion’s  skin  which  he  is  about  to  throw  over  the  shoulders  of  Omphale  who 
is  standing  half-draped,  seen  from  the  rear,  with  club  (?)  in  her  r.  hand.  Plate  X,  11 

FAUSTINA  JR. 

7 B.  M.  C.  82.  Type  of  No.  10. 

LUCIUS  VERUS. 

8 AOV  AVP[HAIOC]  Bust  of  Lucius  Verus  laureate  and  draped  r.  Rev. 

AAMYAK- HNQN  Bust  of  Lucilla  draped  to  r.  Plate  X,  12 

COMMODUS. 

9 B.  M.  C.  83.  Rev.  Nike  to  1.  with  wreath  and  palm. 

JO  [AVA  ?]  KO-M  MOAOC  Bust  of  Commodus,  slightly  bearded  to  r.  wearing 
cuirass  and  paludamentum.  Rev.  AANY-AKH-NQN  Half-Pegasos  r.  in  form  of  a 
sea-horse.  * Plate  X,  13 


SEPTIMIUS  SEVERUS. 
n B.  M.  C.  84.  Rev.  Type  of  No.  3. 

12  B.  M.  C.  85.  Rev.  Type  of  No.  20. 


JULIA  DOMNA. 


J3  IOVA[OMNA]-CGBACT  Bust r.  Rev.  AAN-YA-KHNQN  Similar  to  No.  10. 

Plate  X,  14 


CARACALLA. 

J4  [AVT]  MAVPH-ANTQNIN  Bust  of  Caracalla  to  r.,  laureate,  wearing  cuirass 
and  paludamentum.  Rev.  AANYA-KHNQN  Bust  of  Priapos  draped  and  wearing 
taenia  to  r.  Plate  X,  15 

15  B.  M.  C.  86.  Rev.  K)'bele  seated  1.  holding  patera ; before  her,  a lion. 

J6  B.  M.  C.  87.  Rev.  Homonoia  standing  near  lighted  altar,  holding  patera 
and  cornucopiae. 


76 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics 


GET  A. 

J7  AV[.  ...]0C  CGTTTreTAC  Bust  of  Geta  r.,  laureate,  wearing  cuirass  and 
paludamentum.  Rev.  AANY-A-K  H NQN  Similar  to  No.  10.  Plate  X,  16 

SKVERUS  ALEXANDER. 

18  Carlsruhe.  Zeit.  f.  Num.  VII,  p.  25,  No.  2,  pi.  i,  15.  Rev.  [GTTI  CT] 
TTPEIMOY  AAMYAK-HNQN.  Phrixos  on  ram  ; below,  Helle  lying  on  waves. 

PHILIP  I. 

19  B.  M.  C.  88.  Rev.  Priapos  within  bexastyle  temple. 

TREBONIANUS  GALLUS. 

20  AVTKOVIBTPrAAAOC  Bust  of  Trebonianus  Gallus  to  r.,  laureate,  wearing 
cuirass  and  paludamentum.  Rev.  AANYAK H N-fi-[N]  GTTICTPCOC-CIOV  Statue  of 
Priapos  on  basis  1.,  holding  in  r.  band,  kantharos  over  lighted  altar,  and  thyrsos  in  1. 

Plate  X,  17 

21  B.  M.  C.  89,  90.  Rev.  Athena  bolding  Nike  in  r.,  standing  1.,  resting  1. 
hand  on  shield.  AANYA-KH-NQ-N  GTTICTPGVT-VXIQN,  GTT ICTPCOC-CIOV 

VALERIANUS  I.  ' 

22  B.  M.  C.  91.  Rev.  Type  similar  to  No.  21,  but  GTTiAA-^-NO-V. 

GALLTENUS. 

23  AVTOr-AAAIHNO-C  Similar  to  No.  20.  Rev.  AANYAKHN-ON  Similar  to 

No.  20.  Plate  X,  19 

24  AVKTTArAAAIHNO[C]  Similar.  Rev.  [AAN]-YAKHNQ[N]  Abundantia 

(?)  standing  facing,  holding  rudder  in  r.,  cornucopia  in  1.  Plate  X , 20 

Alliance  Coin  of  Lampsakos  and  Phokaia 

COMMODUS. 

25  AVTOKMAV-PKOMMOAOC  Similar.  Rev.^  GTTICTPA  MO-CCXA  BNG  The 

city-goddess  of  Phokaia  on  1.,  turreted  and  leaning  1.  arm  on  spear,  clasping  r.  hand 
of  city-goddess  of  Lampsakos  hel meted  and  resting  1.  hand  on  shield ; between  two, 
QM0N01[A]  in  three  lines ; in  exergue,  4>QKAIGQN  AAMYA  (cf.  Mionnet  II,  p.  565, 
No.  330  where  the  proper  name  4>QKAIGQN  is  read  lOVAIGQN).  Plate  X,  18 


ADDENDA 
(cf.  p.  63,  note  1) . 

1.  Of  these  unique  pieces  without  the  ethnic,  the  drachm  (Gaebler, 
op.  cit.,  pi.  ii,  1)  seems  certainly  to  be  transitional  in  style,  and  the  three 
coins  {ibid. , pi.  ii,  1-3)  therefore  may  he  regarded  as  sporadic  issues  of 
the  Fifth  Century.  However,  this  does  not  affect  our  main  contention 
that  the  coins  of  our  Group  B are  to  be  placed  at  about  the  beginning 
of  the  Fourth  Century,  and  that  their  “ archaism  ” is  not  a retention 
such  as  occurs  in  the  transitional  period,  but  a deliberate  revival  of  the 
next  Century.  Compare  further  Dr.  Regling’s  remarks  on  the  chro- 
nology in  his  review  of  Dr.  Gaebler’s  paper  (Zeit.  f.  Num.,  xxxiv,  p. 
373) . This  writer  would  assign  the  extremely  scarce  issues  (Gaebler, 
pi.  ii,  2,  3)  to  464-454;  the  coins  that  seem  rightly  to  head  the  series  of 
“ obols  ” and  “diobols”  («6id.,  pi.  ii,  4,  5 = our  PI.  VI,  2,  3)  to  454- 
415.  In  the  period  405-387,  Gaebler’s  third  subdivision,  he  would  in- 
clude not  only  the  “diobols”  {ibid..,  pi.  ii,  26-34  = our  PI.  VI,  22-32) 
but  also  part  of  the  “obols,”  while  the  great  majority  of  the  “ obols,” 
he  would  place  between  387  and  365.  The  smaller  denominations,  he 
suggests,  probably  began  earlier  than  the  larger  pieces,  were  continued 
contemporaneously  with  these  latter,  and  survived  them.  This  is  an 
interesting  point  of  view,  and  it  may  be  noted  that  the  coins  on  our  PI. 
VI,  19  and  30  would  easily  pass  as  contemporaneous  issues,  as  their 
reverses  indicate.  The  distinction  in  style.  Dr.  Regling  thinks,  may 
have  been  maintained  as  a method  of  distinguishing  the  two  denomi- 
nations. 

(cf.  Catalogue  of  Types,  No.  17c) . 

2.  The  Maenad  head.  No.  17c,  formerly  Caruso,  was  sold  again  in 
Sotheby’s  Cat.  “ A Russian  Nobleman  ”,  June,  1924,  No.  176,  and  is 
now  in  the  Newell  Collection. 


LAMPSAKOS 


Plate  I 


6 


Plate  0 


LAMPSAKOS 


8 


m 


GOLD  STATERS 


LAMPSAKOS 


Plate  IV 


LAMPSAKENE  AND  RELATED  TYPES 


LAMPSAKOS 


Plate  V 


SILVER  COINAGE  — ARCHAIC 


LAMPSAKOS 


Plate  VI 


Qii  VPR  rniMAnp roi  irtm  rPMTi  irv  r r 


LAMPSAKOS 


Plate  VII 


COINAGES  OF  LYSIMACHOS  AND  ALEXANDER,  THIRD  CENTURY  B.  C. 


LAMPSAKOS 


Plate  VIII 


SILVER  COINAGE.  SECOND  CENTURY.  AND  NON-LAMPSAKENE  ISSUES 


i 


Tj 

i 


BRONZE.  190-85  B.  C.  AND  IMPERIAL 


LAMPSAKOS 


Plate  X 


NOMISMA 


Untersuchungen  auf  dem  Gebiete 
der  antiken  Miinzkunde 

Begriindet  von 

Hans  von  Fritze(t)  und  Hugo  Gaebler. 


XII 


nebst  Register  zu  I — XII. 


Herausgegeben  von  H.  Gaebler. 


Berlin 

Mayer  & Muller  G.  m.  b.  H. 
1923. 


Am  10.  Juli  1919  hat  der  Tod  dem  schafFensfreudigen  Dasein  Hans 
vonFritze’s  ein  vorzeitiges  Ende  bereitet.  Den  Lebensgang  des  Verewig- 
ten  schilderte  bereits  Johannes  Kirchner  (Jahresber.  f.  Altertumswissensch., 
Bd.  185  B)  und  wiirdigte  dabei  auch  seine  wissenschaftliche  Bedeutung.  Mir 
bleibt  die  Aufgabe  darzutun,  was  ihm  speziell  die  von  uns  beiden  ins  Leben 
gerufene  Zeitschrift  „Nomisma“  verdankt. 

Von  der  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften  mit  dem  mj^sischen  Bande  des 
Corpus  nummornm  betraut,  hat  von  Fritze,  als  er  an  die  Bearbeitung  des 
von  ihm  mit  unermudlichem  FleiB  gesammelten  Materials  schritt,  sehr  bald 
als  dringende  Notwendigkeit  empfnnden,  die  eingehenden  Vorstudien  zu 
dem  groBen  Werke  in  aller  Ausfuhrlichkeit  gesondert  zu  veroffentlichen, 
um  nach  dieser  Entlastung  dann  die  gewonnenen  Resultate  in  iibersicht- 
licher  Knappheit  dem  Benutzer  des  Corpus  an  die  Hand  geben  zu  konnen. 
So  reifte  in  ihm  der  G-edanke,  sich  eine  zweckentsprechende  Publikations- 
moglichkeit  zu  schalFen,  und  seinem  Wunsch,  deren  Redaktion  mit  mir  zu 
teilen,  lieh  ich  um  so  williger  Gehbr,  als  ich  bei  der  Bearbeitung  des  make- 
donischen  Corpusbandes  den  Mangel  solcher  Bewegungsfreiheit  selbst  oft 
und  schmerzlich  gefiihlt  hatte.  Wir  verfolgten  dabei  zugleich  den  Zweck, 
fill’  die  bei  der  Corpusarbeit  erprobte  Methode  sorgfaltigster  Stempel-  und 
Stilbeobachtung  Musterbeispiele  zu  liefern,  um  ihr  so  gegen  mancherlei 
Widerstand  endlich  allgemeine  Anerkennung  zu  erkampfen. 

Ein  Zufall  fiigte  es,  daB  die  ersten  Studien  dieser  Art,  die  von  Fritze 
im  Nomisma  (III.  IV)  veroffentlichen  konnte,  Abdera  und  Ainos  galten. 
Plbtzlich  vor  die  undankbare  Aufgabe  gestellt,  das  gestrandete  Schifflein 
des  thrakischen  Bandes,  so  gut  es  ging,  wieder  flottzumachen,  muBte  von 
Fritze,  seine  Beschaftigung  mit  den  ihm  lieb  gewordenen  mysischen  Miin- 
zen  unterbrechend,  sich  den  autonomen  Gepragen  jener  beiden  thrakischen 
Stadte  zuwenden.  Aus  seinem  eigenen  Munde  weiB  ich,  wie  hart  ihn  dieser 
unfreiwillige  Wechsel  des  Arbeitsgebietes  traf,  und  um  so  hbhere  Anerken- 
nung verdient  die  minutibse  Sorgfalt,  die  er  der  unwillkommenen  Aufgabe 
widmete  und  die  ihn  in  mustergiiltiger  Weise  ihrer  Herr  werden  lieB.  Mit 
■ verdoppeltem  Eifer  dann  zu  seinen  mysischen  Miinzen  zuriickkehrend,  lie- 
ferte  von  Fritze  chronologische  Studien  iiber  die  vorkaiserlirhen  Miinzen 
von  Adiumytion  sowie  die  Elektroji-,  Sillier-  und  antonome  K ujiferpragmig 
von  Kyzikos  (Homisma  V.  VII.  IX.  X). 

Im  Verein  mit  analogen,  anderwarts  verbffentlichten  Arbeiten  iiber  die 
Miinzen  von  Ilion  und  von  Pergamon  geben  diese  UntersuchUngen  ein  glan- 
zerides  Bild  seiner  besonderen  Eigenart.  Als  trefflich  geschulter  Archaologe 


an  die  antiken  Miinzen  herantretend  und  mit  feinem  Stilgefiihl  begabt, 
schreitet  bier  von  Fritze  auf  dem  Wege,  den  er  mit  einem  Aufsatz  iiber 
die  Miinztypen  von  Athen  im  6.  Jahrbundert  vor  Chr.  (Zeitscbr.  f.  Num.  XX) 
bereits  1895  eingescblagen  hat,  sicb  immer  mebr  vervollkommnend  von  Er- 
folg  zu  Erfolg.  Durcb  eingeliendste  stilistische  Analyse  schatFt  er  sick  die 
feste  Basis  fiir  den  cbronologiscben  Aufbau,  dem  dann  historiscke  und  son- 
stige  Forscbungen  als  Kontrolle  dienen  und  weitere  Stiitzen  liefern.  Die 
Hauptsacbe  aber  bleibt  ihm  stets,  vor  allem  das  restlos  auszusckbpfen,  was 
aus  den  Miinzen  selbst  sick  dem  sckarfen  Beobackter  otFenbart,  und  seitiem 
Bestreben  die  Erzeugnisse  der  antiken  Stempelsckneider  im  Zusammenkang 
mit  der  gesamten  grieckischen  Kunstentwickelung  zu  betrackten  kommt  die 
griindlicke  arckaologiscke  Sckulung  ausgiebig  zu  gute,  die  ikn  befakigt  mit 
sickerem  Blick  die  geeignetsten  Parallelen  zu  zieken  und  fiir  seine  numis- 
matiscken  Zwecke  auszuwerten. 

Xeben  diesen  Meisterleistungen  treten  naturgemafi  die  sonstigen  Bei- 
trage,  die  das  Nomisma  von  Fritze’s  fleifiiger  Feder  verdankt,  etwas  zuriick, 
obwokl  auck  in  iknen  mancke  sckone  Fruckt  sick  darbietet.  So  wird  in 
dem  Aufsatz  „Sestos“  (Nomisma  I)  der  erfolgreicke  Versuch  unternommen, 
festzustellen,  in  welcken  Emissionen  dieser  Stadt  uns  die  in  dem  mehrfach 
publizierten  sestischen  Ehrendekret  fiir  Menas  erwaknte,  durch  diesen  be- 
sorgte  Miinzpragung  vorliegt.  Ebenso  gliicklick  sind  von  Fritze’s  Arbeiten 
„Asklepiosstatuen  in  Pergamon“  (Nomisma  II)  mit  dem  Hauptresultat,  daB 
der  sogen.  „ioniscke  Tempel"  auf  der  Burg  dem  Zeus  Asklepios  geweiht 
war  und  spater  auck  den  Kult  des  Kaisers  Caracalla  aufnakm,  sowie  „Der 
Attiskult  in  Kyzikos“  (Nomisma  IV),  wo  der  gelagerte  Jiingling  gewisser 
kyzikeniscker  Kaisermiinzen  als  Attis  erkannt  wird  und  damit  auf  alle 
Einzelkeiten  dieser  Miinzbilder  neues  Lickt  fallt.  Lekrreick  ist  endlick  auck, 
wie  von  Fritze  in  seinem  Aufsatz  „Aufgaben  der  gideckiscken  Miinzwissen- 
sckaft"  (Nomisma  VI)  an  den  mit  Jakresdaten  versehenen  Silbermiinzen  von 
Alexandreia  Troas  die  Ricktigkeit  seiner  oben  ckarakterisierten  Forschungs- 
methode  iiberzeugend  dartut. 

In  den  letzten  beiden,  durck  Krankkeit  getriibten  Jakren  seines  Lebens 
beschaftigten  von  Fritze  neben  den  Schlufiarbeiten  zur  Herausgabe  der 
zweiten,  Kyzikos  enthaltenden  Abteilung  der  antiken  Miinzen  Mysiens 
Studien  Uber  die  autonome  Priigung  von  Lampsakos.  Eine  Abhandlung 
iiber  die  Silbermiinzen  dieser  Stadt  vermockte  er  mit  bereits  erlabmender 
Schatt'enskraft  in  einzelnen  Skizzen  nock  zu  entwerfen,  die  manckes  Wert- 
volle  bieten.  Sie  liegen  der  nackstekendan  Veroffentlickung  zu  G-runde, 
mit  der  ick  dem  Verev\dgten  die  Treue  iiber  das  Grab  kinaus  kalten  zu 
kbnnen  rnick  von  Herzen  gefreut  kabe. 


Hugo  Gaebler. 


Die  Silberpragnng  von  Lampsakos. 

Eine  chronologische  Studie 
(nach  von  J'ritze’s  hinterlassenem  Teilentwurf  umgearbeitet  und  vervollstandigt). 

Hierzu  Tafel  I und  II. 


mm 


1) 

13 

Vs. 

Rs. 

2) 

10 

Vs. 

Rs. 

3) 

12 

Vs. 

Rs. 

4) 

11 

Vs. 

Rs. 

5) 

11 

Vs. 

Rs. 

6) 

13 

Vs. 

Rs. 

7) 

10 

Vs. 

8) 

10 

Vs. 

Rs. 

9) 

10 

Vs. 

Rs. 

10) 

17 

Vs. 

Rs. 

11) 

9 

Vs. 

Rs. 

Grruppe  I. 

Vorderteil  eines  gefliigelten  Pferdes  mit  angezogenem  Kopf  und 
leicht  geoffnetem  Maul  nach  r.,  der  r.  Fliigel  erhohen,  der  1.  unnatiirlich 
gesenkt  und  dadurch  hinter  dem  Abschnitt  zum  Vorschein  kommend. 
UnregelmaBig  vertieftes,  viergeteiltes  Quadrat.  — Tafel  I,  1. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  1. 

Viergeteiltes  vertieftes  Quadrat,  zwei  diagonal  gestellte  Felder  starker 
eingesenkt.  Dicker  Scbrotling.  — Tafel  I,  2. 

Vorderteil  des  Fliigelpf erdes  wie  bei  No.  1.  2,  aber  linkshin  (dem- 
entsprecbend  der  1.  Fliigel  erboben,  der  r.  gesenkt)  und  gezaumt. 
UnregelmaBig  vertieftes,  viergeteiltes  Quadrat.  — Tafel  I,  3. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  3,  dock  ohne  Zaum. 

GHeicbmaBiger  vertieftes  Quadrat  mit  Balkenkreuz.  — Tafel  I,  4 (Uniki:im). 
Ebenso  wie  No.  4,  aber  mit  Perlkreis. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  4,  aber  das  Balkenkreuz  weniger  scharf  markiert.  — 
Tafel  I,  5 (IJnikum). 

Vorderteil  des  Fliigelpferdes  nach  r.  wie  bei  No.  1.  2,  aber  der  Kopf 
frei  erboben  und  das  Maul  geschlossen. 

UnregelmaBig  vertieftes,  viergeteiltes  Quadrat.  — Tafel  I,  6 (Unikum). 
und  Rs.  wie  No.  6.  — Tafel  I,  7 (Unikum). 

Vorderteil  des  Fliigelpferdes  nach  1.  wie  bei  No.  3. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  2,  aber  etwas  unregelmaBiger.  — Tafel  I,  8 (Unikum). 
Ebenso  wie  No.  4,  aber  der  Kopf  frei  erboben  und  das  Maul  gebffnet. 
Ebenso  wie  No.  2.  8,  aber  im  Granzen  flacber  und  regelmaBiger,  der  Grrund 
der  beiden  starker  eingesenkten  Felder  gepunktet.  — Tafel  I,  9 (Unikum). 
Vorderteil  des  Fliigelpferdes  nach  r.  wie  bei  No.  1.  2,  aber  der  Kopf 
nur  leicht  angezbgen  und  das  Maul  weiter  geoifnet. 

UnregelmaBig  vertieftes,  viergeteiltes  Quadrat.  — Tafel  I,  10. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  10. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  10,  aber  infolge  Abnutzung  des  Punzens  unregelmaBiger. 
— Tafel  I,  11  (Unikum). 


2 


II.  G ae b 1 er, 


Da.s  Fliigelpferd  unci  namentlich  sein  Vorderteil  gehdrt  zu  den  Miinzbildern, 
die  verschiedenen  griechischen  Prageorten,  besonders  des  nordwestlichen  Kleinasiens, 
gemeinsam  waren.  Von  den  Silbermiinzen  mit  diesem  Typus  wird  man  daber  gut  tun 
nur  solche  an  Lampsakos  zu  geben,  deren  Fliigelpferd  mit  dem  des  lampsakeniscben 
Elektrons  in  den  wesentlichen  Ziigen  iibereinstimmt.  Fiir  letzteres  ist  nun  charak- 
teristisch,  dab  der  r.  Fliigel  des  bier  stets  nacb  1.  gewandten  Tieres  niebt,  wie 
anderwarts  iiblicb,  dem  Kontur  des  voll  sicbtbaren  linken  parallel  nur  ein  wenig 
vor-  oder  zuriickgeriickt  wird  sondern  in  unnatiirlicher  Weise  gesenkt  hinter  dem 
Abschnitt  des  Leibes  zum  Vorschein  kommt^),  so  dab  er  bei  fliichtiger  Auspragung 
oder  schlechter  Erbaltung  der  Mttnze  den  Eindruck  eines  Vogelscbwanzes  erweckt. 
Oft'enbar  sind  spiitere  Stempelscbneider  dieser  Tauscbung  verfallen  und  haben  statt 
des  zweiten  Fliigels  tatsacblicb  einen  Schwanz  angefiigt  (vgl.  Tafel  II,  37.  38.  40.  41; 
Brit.  Cat.  Mysia,  Taf.  XX,  4),  wie  ibn  aacb  das  Wappenbild  fiber  dem  epidauriscben 
Ebrendekret  eines  Lampsakeners  aus  dem  IV.  Jahrhundert  vor  Chr.  bereits  mifi- 
verstandlich  zeigt  ®). 

Nacb  Ausscbeidung  der  Greprage,  welcbe  die  beiden  Fliigel  in  anderer  Weise 
darstellen  oder  den  einen  ganz  fortlassen *),  bleibt  aber  zu  bedenken,  dab  in  genau 
dem  lampsakeniscben  Elektron  gleichender  Wiedergabe  das  halbe  Fliigelpferd  auch 
auf  den  Miinzen  von  Adramytion,  Iplla,  Thebe  und  Skepsis  erscbeint.  Von  diesen 
Stadten  kommen  die  ersteren  drei,  da  sie,  wie  feststebt,  nicht  so  friib  gepragt 
haben®),  als  etwaige  Heimat  fur  unser  Silber  nicht  in  Frage,  wobl  aber  konnte 
8kepsis  in  Mitbewerb  treten®),  und  wir  miissen  deshalb  noch  ein  weiteres  Kriterium 
heranziehen,  niimlich  die  Form  und  Entwickelung  des  Punzeneinscblages  auf  der  Rs. 
Ahnlich  wie  bei  der  kyzikeniscben  Elektronjp’agung  den  Reiben  mit  Punzeneinschlag 
in  Windmiihlenfliigelform  solche  mit  primitiven  Incusa  vorausgehen  (vgl.  von  Fritze, 
Xomisma  VII,  S.  2,  1 if.,  Taf.  I,  1 ff.),  ist  bei  der  lampsakeniscben  trotz  ibrer  weit 
spai’licberen  und  viel  spiiter  einsetzenden  Emissionen  zu  bemerken,  dab  aus  dem 
anfangs  durch  ein  Balkenkreuz  geteilten  Quadrat’)  sich  die  fiir  Lampsakos  cbarak- 
teristiscbe  Form  entwickelt,  die  zwei  diagonal  gestellte  Felder  tiefer  als  die  anderen 


0 So  z.  H.  auf  Miinzen  von  Teos  (Babelon,  Traitci 
III,  1,  Taf.  Xlll,  .b)  und  von  Abdera  (Die  ant. 
Mzn.  Nord{;rie(henIands  IJ,  1,  Taf.  1,  2 ft',  und 
Taf.  Ill,  I). 

•')  .ihnlii'li  z.  B.  bei  dem  getlugelten  Eber  von 
Klazoinenai  und  lassos  (Babelon,  Traite  III,  1, 
l af.  XII,  13  ft'.  und  Taf.  XX,  13  f.). 

*)  Vgl.  Cavvadias,  Fouilles  d’Epidaure  1,  S.  11!, 
274;  Perdrizet,  Bull,  de  corr.  hell.  XX  (1896), 

' .‘jj;!,  Fig.  3:  Agnes  Baldwin,  The  electriiui 
coinage  of  Lampsakos  (1914),  S.  12,  Fig.  3.  Die 
letztgenannte  Arbeit  ist  mir  erst  im  Februar 
1922  bekannt  und  zugiinglich  geworden.  Soweit 
dieselbe  gelegentlich  auch  die  Silbermiinzen  der 
Stadt  beranzielit,  ist  sie  bier  noch  naclitriiglicb 
beriicksichtigt.  Meine  chronologische  Studie  fiber 
die  lampsakeniscbe  Elcktronprilgung  aber,  die  i 


ich  der  vorliegenden  fiber  das  Silbergeld  voran- 
zustellen  gedaebte,  ist  durcb  A.  Baldwin’s  zu 
vollig  gleichen  Resultaten  gelangende  Verbffent- 
licbung  iiberliiissig  gemacht;  vgl.  mein  Referat 
im  Numismat.  Literatur-Blatt  1922,  No.  223/224, 
S.  1852  f. 

^)  So  z.  B.  Auktionskatalog  Hirsch  XXV  (1909), 
Taf.  XXI,  1783;  Babelon,  Inventaire  Waddingtou 
No  869—871. 

Vgl.  I'iir  Adramytion  and  loUa ; von  Fritze,  Die 
ant.  Mzn.  Mysieus,  Abt.  1,  S.  9 und  S.  212;  fiir 
Thebe : Babelon,  Traite  II,  2,  No.  2520,  Taf. 
CLXX,  17. 

Vgl.  Brit.  Cat.  Troas  etc.,  S.  80,  3 ft’.,  Taf.  XV,  3 IF. 
')  Vgl.  Brit.  Cat.  Mysia,  Taf.  XVIII,  7 = Baldwin, 
a.  a.  0.  Taf.  I,  1 ; Kat.  Hirsch  XXV  (1909),  Taf. 
XXI,  1785  = Baldwin,  a.  a.  0.  S.  6,  Fig.  1. 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 


s 


einsenkt^).  Beides  kehrt  auf  den  oben  beschriebenen  Silbermiinzen  wieder,  bier 
allerdings  nicht  in  so  deutlichem  Nacheinander,  sondern  mehr  den  Eindruck  tastender 
Versucbe  mackend.  No.  9 zeigt  nock  die  Besonderkeit,  daB  die  beiden  starker  ver- 
tieften  Felder  mit  Punktierung  verseken  sind,  wird  deskalb  aber  wohl  nicht 
Lampsakos  abzusprechen  sein,  da  ahnlich  singulare  Abweichungen  auch  sonst  vor- 
kommen,  so  z.  B.  in  der  Silberpragung  von  Abdera  (vgl.  Die  ant.  Mzn.  Nordgriecken- 
lands  II,  1,  S.  75,  110,  Taf.  Ill,  5).  Nickt  kierher  jedock  durften  solcke  Stucke  ge- 
koren,  deren  Rs.  ganz  andere  Einschlage,  wie  das  Hakenkreuz  (Brit.  Cat.  Mysia, 
Taf.  XVIII,  6)  oder  die  Windmuhlenfliigelform  (Exemplar  von  2,05  g im  Haag),  auf- 
weist.  Das  gleiche  gilt  ferner  fiir  die  Geprage,  auf  deren  Rs.  ein  grotesker  bartiger 
Kopf  mit  weit  aufgerissenem  Mund  nack  r.  in  Perlquadrat  oder  andere  Typen 
(z.  B.  Kat.  Windisckgratz  V,  1464)  ersckeinen. 

Die  hier  vorgeschlagene  Anordnung  unserer  als  Gruppe  I zusammengefafiten  Silber- 
munzen  folgt  der  stilistischen  Entwiekelung  des  Pragbildes.  An  den  Anfang  gehoren 
okne  Zweifel  No.  1 und  2.  Ihr  Fliigelpferd  zeigt  den  unverkaltnismaBig  langen  Kopf 
und  die  unbeholfene  Haltung  der  Vorderbeine  wie  das  der  altesten  Elektronstatere, 
deren  Beginn  A.  Baldwin  (The  electrum  coinage  of  Lampsakos,  S.  3)  ricktig  bis 
ca.  525  vbr  Chr.  kinaufruckt.  Abweickend  von  diesen  ist  auf  eine  Andeutung  des 
Rumpfes  vollig  verzicktet,  so  dafi  der  AuBenkontur  des  erkobenen  Fliigels  direkt 
den  gesenkten  uberschneidet.  So  bleibt  es  auck  bei  No.  3 — 5,  wo  aber  insofern  ein 
Fortsckritt  sick  bemerkbar  mackt,  als  nun  auck  bei  dem  gesenkten  Flugel  die  zweite 
(kiirzere)  Federreike,  die  bei  dem  erkobenen  von  Anfang  an  deutlich  unterschieden 
wird,  zur  Darstellung  kommt.  No.  6 und  7 bringen  zum  ersten  Male  eine  Andeutung 
des  Rumpfes,  und  zwar  in  Form  eines  kurzen,  sckmalen  Stummels,  dessen  unterer 
Rand  mit  dem  Kontur  des  Fliigels  zusammenfallt.  Letzteres  ist  bei  No.  8 und  9 
beibehalten,  aber  mit  starkerer  Betonung  der  Abscknittslinie,  wakrend  dann  bei 
No.  10  und  11  der  1.  Flugel  so  tief  kerabgezogen  wird,  daB  er  auck  unterkalb  des 
Rumpfes  zum  Vorschein  kommt.  Mit  diesen  Abwandlungen  zugleich  vollziekt  sick 
auck  eine  fortschreitende  Entwiekelung  des  kiinstlerischen  Konnens,  die  offensickt- 
lick  mit  No.  10.  11  ikren  Hokepunkt  erreickt.  Dabei  ist  das  Festhalten  eines  starren 
Schemas  vermieden,  vielmehr  durck  Rechts-  oder  Linkswenden  des  Tieres  sowie  ver- 
schiedene  Kopfkaltung  und  gelegentlicke  Hinzufiigung  eines  Zaumes  das  Gesamtbild 
in  Einzelziigen  gesekiekt  variiert®).  Die  gleiche  Mannigfaltigkeit  beobachten  wir 


*)  Vgl.  Babelon,  Traite  III,  1,  Taf.  VIII,  1 f. ; Bald- 
win, a.  a.  0.  Taf.  I,  2 ff. 

’)  Diese  Geprage  reiht  Babelon  (Traits  II,  1, 
No.  640)  unter  die  lampsakenischen  ein,  be- 
merkt  dazu  aber,  daB  sie  vielleicht  eher  nach 
Gaza  gehoren.  Diese  letztere  Zuteilung,  die  er 
spater  (Traits  II,  2,  No.  1069)  wieder  aufnimmt, 
ist  ohne  Zweifel  die  allein  richtige  und  das 
Fliigelpferd  (wie  auch  Hill,  Brit.  Cat.  Palestine, 
S.  LXXXV  meint)  nur  von  Lampsakos  her  ent- 
lehnt.  Das  bei  Babelon  auf  Taf.  CXXIV,  18 
abgebildete  Exemplar  ist  nicht  das  Pariser, 
wie  irrig  im  Text  angegeben,  sondern  das  jetzt 


in  Berlin  befindliche  aus  Slg.  Imhoof-Blumer 
(Monnaies  grecques,  S.  471,  78,  Choix  Taf.  VII, 
241 ; Six,  Num.  chron.  1877,  S.  230, 44),  welches 
Babelon  selbst  bereits  in  sehr  schlechter  Zeich- 
nung  veroffentlicht  hat  (Les  Perses  Achemdnides, 
1893,  S.  LXV,  Fig.  28)  und  an  der  erstgenannten 
Stelle  seines  Traits  (II,  1,  No.  640)  neben  dem 
Pariser  (Taf.  XVI,  17)  erwahnt. 

®)  Damit  steht  dieses  nur  fiir  den  Lokalverkehr 
ausgegebene  Kleingeld  in  vielleicht  bewuBtem 
Gegensatz  zu  den  auf  weite  Verbreitung  be- 
rechneten  Elektronstateren,  die  den  Typus  kon- 
servativer  behandeln. 


4 


H.  G aeb ler , 


* bei  dem  Punzeneinschlag  der  Rs.  Seine  Ausstattung  wechselt  iiberraschend  oft, 
versucht  Reues,  kebrt  zu  Altem  zuriick.  Dab  dem  so  ist,  lehrt  die  folgerichtige 
stilistische  Entwickelung  des  Vs.-Bildes,  zu  deren  Giunsten  man  den  Gredanken  einer 
etwaigen  Grruppierung  unserer  elf  Emissionen  nach  den  Incusa  der  Rs.  unbedingt 
aufgeben  muB. 

DaB  die  lampsakeniscke  Silberpragung  ein  wenig  spater  begonnen  hat  als  die 
Ausgabe  des  Elektronstaters,  ergibt  der  im  Vergleich  zu  dessen  ersten  Emissionen 
offensichtlich  etwas  jungere  Stil  von  No.  1,  2 und  folgende  Erwagung.  Ihr  Ende 
fand  unsere  Grruppe  I zweifellos  mit  der  Einnahme  der  Stadt  durch  Daurises  im 
Jahre  498  oder  497  vor  Chr.  (s.  unten  S.  13),  und  bei  der  groBen  Seltenheit  dieser 
Miinzen  (7  von  den  elf  Nummern  sind  Unika,  2 durch  nur  je  zwei  Exemplare  ver- 
treten)  sowie  angesichts  des  verhaltnismaBig  geringen  stilistischen  Abstandes  zwischen 
No.  1.  2 und  10.  11  wird  man  kaum  viel  iiber  zwei  Dezennien  als  Entstehungszeit 
fur  Giruppe  I annehmen  diirfen,  was  auf  ca.  515  oder  hochstens  520  vor  Chr.  als 
Anfangstermin  fiihrt. 

Die  Emissionen  No.  1—9  reprasentieren  zwei  Nominate,  ein  groBeres  im  Gewicht 
von  2,65  (No.  3),  • 2,53  (No.  2),  2,52  (No.  6),  2,37  (No.  3),  2,36  (No.  8),  2,31  (No.  1), 
2,30  (No.  1),  2,27  (No.  3)  und  2,16  g (No.  2)  und  ein  kleineres  mit  den  Betragen 
1,44  (No.  5),  1,37  (No.  4),  1,27  (No.  7)  und  1,24  g (No.  9).  Sie  folgen  also,  wie  zu 
erwarten  war,  dem  MiinzfuB  der  gleichzeitigen  Elektronstatere,  aus  deren  Gewicht 
von  ca.  15,40  g^)  sich  ein  Diobolon  von  ca.  2,57  und  ein  Obol  von  ca.  1,28  g ergibt. 
Die  geringe  Gewichtsiiberschreitung  bei  No.  3®)  bzw.  No.  4.  5 ist  eine  bei  so  kleinen 
Nominalen  nicht  seltene  und  leipht  begreifliche  Erscheinung,  die  gegen  eine  Zu- 
gehorigkeit  der  Stiicke  zu  dem  MiinzfuB  des  Elektronstaters  nicht  ins  Feld  gefiihrt 
werden  kann.  Als  abwegig  muB  es  deshalb  bezeichnet  werden,  wenn  Gardner 
(History  of  ancient  coinage,  S.  174)  das  nicht  besonders  gut  erhaltene  Pariser 
Exemplar  von  No.  2 mit  einem  Gewicht  von  2,16  g (das  Tafel  I,  2 abgebildete 
Berliner  wiegt  2,53  g)  fiir  eine  Halbdrachme  attischer  Wahrung  erklart  und  darin 
eine  weitere  Bestatigung  der  uns  aus  Thuc.  VI,  59  bekannten  Beziehungen  zwischen 
Lampsakos  und  dem  athenischen  Tyrannen  Hippias  erblickt  (s.  hieriiber  unten  S.  9). 
Ebensowenig  wird  man  A.  Baldwin’s  Ansicht  beipflichten,  wonach  No.  3.  7.  9 (1.4. 
5.  6.  8 kennt  oder  nennt  sie  nicht)  Tetrobolen  und  Diobolen  milesischer  Wahrung 
darstellten,  das  erwahnte  2,16  g schwere  Pariser  Exemplar  von  No.  2 aber  in  dieses 
System  nicht ' passe  und  deshalb  sowie  aus  stilistischen  Griinden  (!)  Lampsakos  ab- 
zusprechen  sei  (The  electrum  coinage  of  Lampsakos,  S.  19  nebst  Anm.  1). 


9 Vgl.  hierzu  den  Nachtrag  auf  S.  33. 

“)  Da  von  den  gut  erhaltenen  Stticken  dieser 
Staterreihe  (Period  I bei  Baldwin,  S.  5 ff.)  die 
drei  schwersten  (No.  9.  10.  13)  15,36,  15,35, 
15,35  g,  die  drei  leichtesten  (No.  2.  1.  11)  15,10, 
15,05,  15,05  g wiegen  (das  stark  abgenutzte 
Pariser,  Baldwin  No.  8,  mit  14,99  sowie  das 
beschadigte  der  Slg.  Windischgratz  mit  15,00  g 
kommen  nicht  in  Betracht),  wird  man  A.  Baldwin 
recht  geben,  wenn  sie  (S.  8,  Anm.  1)  das  Exem- 
plar der  Slg.  Montagu  (I.  Series,  Cat.  Sotheby 


1896,  No.  518)  mit  angeblich  15,487  g,  die 
Richtigkeit  dieses  Betrages  vorausgesetzt,  fiir 
„somewliat  in  excess  of  the  norm“  ansieht, 
und  das  Normalgewicht  hochstens  auf  15,40  g 
abrunden. 

®)  Es  handelt  sich  um  das  Tafel  I,  3 abgebildete, 
offenbar  iibergewichtige  Exemplar  in  Berlin  von 
2,65  g , das  mit  demselben  Punzen  wie  die 
beiden  anderen  (Paris;  2,27;  Slg.  Jakountchikoff: 
2,37  g)  und  auBerdem  auch  dem  gleichen  Vs.- 
Stempel  wie  das  letztgenannte  gepragt  ist. 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 


5 


Einen  Wcchsel  des  MiinzfuBes  lassen  die  unsere  Gruppe  I beschlieBenden  Einis- 
sionen  No.  10  und  11  erkennen.  Die  sechs  Exemplare  von  No.  10  wiegen  6,95  (Berlin), 
6,80  (London),  6,74  (Pozzi),  6,70  (London),  6,66  (Boston)  und  4,52  g (Berlin,  aus 
denselben  Stempeln  wie  Boston,  aber  offensichtlich  eine  Felilpragung  au£  zu  klein 
geratenem  Scbrotling  und  auBerdem  sebr  stark  abgenutzt),  wfihrend  No.  11  (Unikum) 
0,80  g scbwer  i.st.  Wir  liaben  bier,  wie  dies  filr  No.  10  schon  Gardner  (Journal  of 
hell.  stud.  XXXI,  1911,  S.  157)  erkannt  hat,  offenbar  das  Kleingeld  zu  dem  lampsa- 
kenischen  Elektronstater  der  Aufstandspragung  vor  uns,  aus  dessen  (milesischem) 
Gewicht  von  ca.  14,15  g sich  das  Didrachmon  mit  ca.  7,08,  das  Trihemiobolion  mit 
ca.  0,88  berechnet.  Auch  stilistisch  ist  die  Zusammengehbrigkeit  von  No.  10.  11 
mit  den  genannten  Stateren  (s.  Baldwin,  Taf.  II,  1 — 3 f)  ganz  augenfallig,  wahrend 
das  von  Gardner  ebenfalls  hierhergezogene  Geprage  Brit.  Cat.  Mysia,  Taf.  XVIII,  5 
vielmehr  unzweifelhaft  einer  friiheren  Stufe  angehbrt  und  deshalb  oben  seinen  Platz 
als  No.  7 erhalten  hat.  Mit  seinen  1,27  g paBt  das  Stuck  iiberdies  nur  unter  der 
Annahme,  daB  e.s  iibergewichtig,  zu  dem  MiinzfuB  der  lampsakenischen  Aufstands- 
statere,  der  ein  Diobolon  von  hochstens  ca.  1,18  g erfordert,  und  das  hat  Gardner 
wobl  auch  selbst  gefiihlt  und  zum  Ausdruck  bringen  wollen,  indem  er  es  (nebst 
dem  iiberhaupt  nicht  nach  Lampsakos  gehbrenden  Geprage  Brit.  Cat.  Mj^sia,  Taf. 
XVIIl,  6,  s.  oben  S.  3)  als  „probably  diobols“  (of  the  Milesian  standard)  bezeichnet. 


mm 


12) 

16 

Vs. 

Rs. 

13) 

18- 

-16 

Vs. 

Rs. 

14) 

11- 

10 

Vs. 

15) 

10- 

9 

Vs. 

Rs. 

16) 

9 

Vs. 

17) 

20 

Vs. 

Rs. 

18) 

13/9 

Vs. 

19) 

20— 

19 

Vs. 

Rs. 

20) 

12 

Vs. 

Gruppe  II. 

Weiblicher  Doppelkopf  mit  geperltem,  in  die  Stirn  fallenden, 
hinten  wellig  lang  herabhangenden  Haar,  Binde,  gemeinsamem  Ohr- 
schmuck  und  Perlenhalsband. 

Kopf  der  Athena  mit  geperltem,  in  die  Stirn  und  hinten  herab- 
fallenden  Haar,  korinthischem  Helm  (ohne  Busch)  und  Perlenhals- 
band nach  1.  Das  Ganze  in  vertieftem  Quadrat.  — Taf  el  I,  12. 
Ebenso  wie  No.  12,  doch  statt  der  herabhangenden  Haarwellen  drei 
von  einander  getrennte  Locken. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  12.  — Taf  el  I,  13. 
und  Bs.  wie  No.  13.  — Taf  el  I,  14. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  13.  14. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  13.  14,  aber  am  Helmkessel  ein  vierspeichiges  Rad. 
— Tafel  I,  15. 

und  Rs.  wie  No.  13.  14.  — Tafel  I,  16. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  13,  aber  das  Haar  iiber  der  Stirn  gescheitelt. 
Athenakopf  wie  bei  No.  12,  aber  rechtshin;  im  Eeld  1.  Mono- 
gramm.  Das  Ganze  in  vertieftem  Quadrat.  — Tafel  I,  17  (Unikum). 
und  Rs.  wie  No.  17.  — Tafel  I,  18  (Unikum). 

Ebenso  wie  No.  17.  18,  aber  Perlkreis. 

Athenakopf  nach  1.  wie  bei  No.  12 — 14,  aber  am  Helmkessel  eine 
sich  nach  1.  ringelnde  Schlange ; im  Feld  r.  Olzweig  mit  zwei  Blat- 
tern  und  Frucht.  Das  Ganze  in  vertieftem  Quadrat.  — Tafel  I,  19. 
und  Rs.  wie  No.  19.  — Tafel  I,  20  (Unikum). 


6 


H.  Gaebler, 


imn 


21) 

19 

Vs. 

Rs. 

22) 

11 

Vs. 

23) 

19- 

-17 

Vs. 

a) 

Rs. 

b) 

Rs. 

c) 

Rs. 

24) 

11- 

-10 

Vs. 

a) 

Rs. 

b) 

Rs. 

25) 

18- 

-16 

Vs. 

Rs. 

26) 

18/17 

Vs. 

Rs. 

27) 

11 

Vs. 

Rs. 

28) 

18 

Vs. 

Rs. 

29) 

11- 

-10 

Vs. 

Rs. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  19.  20. 

Athenakopf  nack  1.  wie  bei  No.  12—14,  aber  der  Helmkessel  be- 
kranzt.  Das  Gianze  in  vertieftem  Quadrat.  — Tafel  I,  21. 
nnd  Rs.  wie  No.  21.  — Tafel  I,  22  (Unikum). 

Ebenso  wie  No.  19 — 22. 

Atkenakopf  wie  bei  No.  19  (am  Helmkessel  Schlange);  im  Feld 
r.  Monogramm.  — Tafel  I,  23  (Uniknm). 

Atkenakopf  wie  bei  No.  21  (Helmkessel  bekranzt) ; im  Feld  r. 
i (Unikum.)  oder  Monogramm. 

Atkenakopf  wie  bei  No.  12 — 14;  ohne  (Tafel  I,  25)  und  mit  Am- 
pkora  (Unikum)  als  Beizeicken  im  Feld  r. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  19 — 23. 

Atkenakopf  wie  bei  No.  21  (Helmkessel  bekranzt);  im  Feld  r.  i 
(Teilstiick  zu  No.  23,  b).  — Tafel  I,  24. 

Atkenakopf  wie  bei  No.  12 — 14.  (Teilstiick  zu  No.  23,  c).  — 
Tafel  I,  26. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  19 — 24,  dock  mit  nur  zwei  kerabkangenden  Locken. 
Atkenakopf  wie  bei  No.  12—14;  im  Felder.  Kerykeion.  — Ta- 
fel I,  27. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  25,  aber  die  beiden  kerabkangenden  Locken  geperlt. 
Atkenakopf  wie  bei  No.  12 — 14;  im  Feld  1.  oben  mensckliclies 
Auge.  (Unikum). 

Ebenso  wie  No.  26. 

Atkenakopf  wie  bei  No.  21  (Helmkessel  bekranzt);  im  Feld  r. 
Monogramm.  — Tafel  I,  28. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  19 — 27,  dock  okne  die  kerabkangenden  Locken. 
Atkenakopf  wie  bei  No.  12 — 14;  ohne  (Tafel  I,  29)  und  mit  Bei- 
zeichen  (Tafel  1,30,  Unikum)  oder  Monogramm  (Unikum)  im  Feld 
1.  oben. 

Ebenso  wie  No.  28. 

Atkenakopf  wie  bei  No.  12 — 14,  aber  das  Haar  nickt  geperlt.  — 
Tafel  I,  31. 


Das  an  die  Spitze  dieser  Gruppe  II  gestellte  Silberstiick  No.  12  ist  von  sekr 
feiner,  sorgfaltiger  Arbeit.  Die  Profile  sind  altertiimlick,  mit  spitzem  Gesichts- 
winkel  und  en  face  gestelltem  Auge.  Dieses  ist  flack  bekandelt,  die  Iris  nickt 
angegeben,  aber  der  Augapfel  von  den  Lidern  abgesetzt,  der  innere  Winkel  leickt 
kerabgezogen,  der  auBere  dagegen  ein  wenig  gekoben,  der  Gesamteindruck  schlitz- 
artig.  Den  Mund  charakterisiert  das  typiscke  arckaische  Lackeln.  Das  (nur  bei 
dem  Atkenakopf  der  Rs.  sicktbare)  Ohr  sitzt  zu  hock.  Das  Haar  fallt  als  parallele, 
fein  geperlte  Straknen  in  die  Stirn,  bei  dem  Doppelkopf  der  Vs.  bedeckt  es  den 
Sckadel  in  Form  von  grofieren,  langlicken  Buckeln  und  kangt  kinten  in  dickten, 
regelmaBig  gewellten  Locken  lang  kerab.  Das  einreihige  Perlenkalsband  liegt  un- 
mittelbar  fiber  dem  Halsabscknitt.  Die  Struktur  des  korintkischen  Helmes  der 
Athena  ist  streng,  der  Kessel  ziemlick  gedrungen.  Eine  Besonderheit  bietet  der 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 


7 


Ohrschmuck  des  Doppelkopfes.  Er  gesellt,  wie  Eurtwangler  erkannt  hat,  zu  dem 
„dem  ionisclien  Madclientypus  des  reif  archaischen  Stiles  durchweg  eigentiimlichen 
kreisformigen“  Zierrat,  der  das  Lappcheii  verdeckt,  jenes  wie  ein  „gekerbter  Grlocken- 
kelch“  aussehende,  den  grofieren  oberen  Teil  der  Ohrmnschel  umschlieBende  Grebilde, 
das  sick  als  ein  speziell  kyprisches  Modeattribut  erweist,  eine  Verbindung,  die  wir 
z.  B.  auch  bei  dem  Kopfe  No.  3 auf  Taf.  54  des  Ohnefalscli-Bichter’schen  Werkes 
(Kypros,  die  Bibel  und  Homer)  wiederfinden.  Sie  iiberhob  den  Stempel Schneider 
der  Aufgabe,  die  beiden  Ohren  des  Doppelkopfes  in  kiinstlerisch  befriedigender  Weise 
znr  Darstellung  zu  bringen,  ein  Problem,  das  nicht  immer  eine  gliickliche  Lbsung 
gefunden  hat.  In  Tenedos  z.  B.,  wo  der  Doppelkopf  der  altesten  Miinzen  die  gleiche 
^ Schmuckkombination  tragt,  ist  spater,  nach  dem  V erschwinden  des  kyprischen  Ober- 
teiles,  auf  den  groBeren  Nominalen  immer  nur  ein  Ohr  dargestellt,  und  zwar  in 
der  Epoche  ca.  450 — 387  ausnahmslos  das  des  weiblichen,  im  II.  Jahrh.  auch  einmal 
(Exemplar  in  Berlin)  das  des  mannlichen  Kopfes,  wahrend  die  kleineren  Stiicke  die 
Ohren  einfach  fortlassen,  wie  dies  beim  lanuskopf  auf  den  Miinzen  von  Anfang  an 
die  Hegel  ist  (Aes  grave;  Amphipolis,  Thessalonike,  Aitolien).  BloB  das  Ohr  des 
linken  (weiblichen)  Kopfes  sehen  wir  auch  bei  dem  Doppelkopf  einer  Kupfermiinze 
der  taurischen  Chersonesos  wiedergegeben,  beide  Ohren  dagegen  zeigt  der  bartige 
Silensdoppelkopf  von  Thasos,  bei  dem  mit  ihrer  spitzen  Tierform  und  auseinander- 
strebenden  Stellung  eine  gefallige  Linie  sich  erzielen  lieB,  wenig  schon  (einander 
parallel)  der  mannlich-weibliche  Doppelkopf  auf  den  Gepragen  von  Gaza  und  be- 
sonders  liaBlich  (das  menschliche  dicht  unterhalb  des  tierischen)  der  Doppelkopf 
Nymphe-Silen,  der  einer  kyzikenischen  Hekte  (Nomisma  VII,  Taf.  II,  31)  und  einem 
unbestimmten  Elektron-Zwblftel  (Num.  chron.  1897,  Taf.  XI,  20)  gemeinsam  ist®). 

Die  nachstfolgenden  Emissionen  No.  13 — 16  gehoren  stilistisch  einer  und  der- 
selben  Periode  an.  Sie  stellen  vier  verschiedene  Nominale  dar:  neben  dem  Ganz- 
stiick  (No.  18)  stehen  drei  Teilstiicke,  deren  mittleres  (No.  15)  bei  gleichem  Durch- 
messer  nur  durch  ein  am  Helmkessel  des  Athenakopfes  hinzugefiigtes  vierspeichiges 
Rad  von  dem  etwas  schwereren  (No.  14)  unterschieden  ist,  wahrend  das  kleinste 
(No.  16),  im  Gewicht  nur  ganz  wenig  leichter  als  No.  15,  sich  durch  den  geringeren 
Durchmesser  des  Schrbtlings  sowie  den  kleineren  MaBstab  der  Miinzbilder  zu  er- 


')  Neue  Denkmaler  antiker  Kunst  (I),  Sitzungsber. 
der  bayer.  Akad.  der  WisseESch.  1897,  S.  139  f. 
und  145.  Den  Hinweis  hierauf  verdanke  ich 
Herrn  Prof.  Zahn,  der  im  Jabrb.  des  arch.  In- 
stit.  XXIII  (1908),  S.  172  die  Literatur  iiber 
den  kyprischen  „nestartigen  Schmuck"  zu- 
sammengestellt  hat.  — Xach  der  Zeichnung 
auf  der  sehr  fein  und  sorgfaltig  gearbeiteten 
Miinze  No.  12  zu  urteilen,  handelt  es  sich  hier 
nicht  um  eine  steife,  wohl  aus  geripptem  Gold- 
blech  zu  denkende  Umkleidung  des  Ohres  wie 
z.  B.  bei  den  kyprischen  Kopfen  Ohnefalsch- 
Richter  Taf.  48,  3.  4 ; 50,  3.  5.  G ; 54,  3 und  dem 
archaischen  Gorgoneion  von  der  Akropolis  (Furt- 
wangler,  a.  a.  0.  S.  145),  sondern  um  ein  lockeres 


Gefiige  von  einzelnen  Schnixren  oder  Kettchen 
mit  kugeligen  Troddeln  wie  bei  dem  stilistisch 
fortgeschrittensten  Kopfe  O.-R.  Taf.  55,  7 und 
den  klazomenischen  Monumenten  (Vasen:  Ant. 
Denkm,  II,  Taf.  54,  la;  57,  2.  5;  Athen.  Mitth. 
1898,  Taf.  VI,  1.  — Sarkophag;  Jahrb.  des 
arch.  Instit.  1908,  S.  170).  Wir  batten  sonach 
zwei  verschiedene  Ausfuhrungen  desselben  Ge- 
dankens  vor  uns,  deren  zweite  sich  vermutlich 
• aus  der  ersten  entwickelte. 

^)  Diesen  Uberblick  hat  Herr  Direktor  Regling 
mir  in  dankenswertester  Weise  erleichtert  und 
durch  Gestattung  der  Einsicht  in  sein  Scheden- 
material,  dem  ich  den  Hinweis  auf  die  taurische 
Cliersonesos  entnahm,  auch  vervollstandigt. 

2* 


8 


H.  Gaebler, 


kennen  gibt.  Stilistiscli  haiigen  No.  13 — 16  aufs  engste  mit  No.  12  zusammen,  so 
claB  eine  zeitliche  Liicke  dazwischen  ausgeschlossen  ist.  Jndessen  sind  Eortschritte 
nnverkennbar : das  Profil  ist  nickt  mekr  ganz  so  spitzwinkelig,  das  Auge  kraftiger 
betont  iind  dem  Gesicktsbau  besser  eingefiigt,  die  Lider  energisckei’  vom  Augapfel 
abgesetzt,  die  Winkel  weniger  in  die  Lange  gezogen,  dabei  meist  sclion  gerader 
gestellt  und  der  innere  gebftnet,  so  daB  sick  der  scklitzartige  Eindruck  vermindert. 
Abweichend  seken  wir  auck  das  Haar  bekandelt,  das  jetzt  in  ganz  gleickmaBig 
geperlten  Strahnen  Sckadel  und  Stirn  bedeckt  und  kinten  in  drei  getrennten  Locken, 
die  mittlere  senkreckt,  die  beiden  anderen  der  Linie  des  Unterkiefers  folgend,  kerab- 
hangt,  womit  eine  dekora tive  Wirknng  erzielt  wird.  Bei  dem  Okrsckmuck  ist  das 
kypriscke  Oberteil  zu  einem  mondsichelahnlicken  Gebilde  zusammengeschrumpft 
nnd  so  durck  einen  Zwisckenraum  von  dem  kreisfbrmigen  Zierrat  getrennt,  dessen 
Innenperle  jetzt  feklt.  Dieselben  Zeicken  fortsckreitender  Entwickelung  weist  der 
Atkenakopf  der  Rs.  auf,  wenn  auck  dessen  kleinere  Proportionen  nickt  alle  Einzel- 
keiten  gleick  deutlick  kervortreten  lassen. 

Die  Emissionen  No.  17 — 22  sind  wie  No.  13 — 16  ebenfalls  stilistisck  als  kleine 
Sondergruppe  zusammenzufassen.  Dem  Ganzstiick  (No.  17.  19.  21)  gestattet  der 
etwas  zunekmende  Durckmesser  des  Sckrbtlings  die  Typen  zu  vergroBern.  Ihm 
stekt  je  ein  kleines  Nominal  zur  Seite  (No.  18.  20.  22).  No.  19  umgibt  das  Vs.-Bild 
mit  einem  Perlkreis,  eine  Neuerung,  die  fort  an  bis  zum  Ende  unserer  Gruppe  II 
beibekalten  wird.  No.  17  und  18  dreken  den  Atkenakopf  der  Rs.  ausnakmsweise 
nack  r.  Auck  das  neben  ikm  im  Eeld  1.  hinzugefiigte  Monogramni  sowie  das  Bei- 
zeichen  im  Eeld  r.  bei  No.  19.  20  sind  Neuersckeinungen,  wahrend  die  Scklange  am 
Helmkessel  auf  No.  19.  20  in  dem  Rad  auf  No.  15  einen  Vorlaufer  kat.  No.  21.  22 
endlick  zeigen  den  Helmkessel  bekranzt.  Stilistisck  bedeuten  No.  17 — 22  bei  engem 
AnsckluB  an  No.  13 — 16  einen  weiteren  Fortsckritt.  Der  strenge  Ckarakter  der 
Gesichtsbildung  weist  zwar  nock  die  oben  gekennzeichneten  Eigentumlichkeiten  auf, 
erlaubt  aber  in  keinem  Ealle  mekr  von  einem  Vogelprofil  zu  reden.  Wenn  auf 
einzelnen  Exemplaren  sckeinbar  eine  Angabe  ddr  Iris  in  einem  Auge  des  Doppel-^ 
kopfes  wahrzunehmcn  ist, ' so  berukt  dieser  Eindruck  allerdings  auf  zufalligen  Ver- 
letzungen,  wie  das  andere  Auge  beweist  (so  z.  B.  bei  No.  17.  19).  Besondere  Be- 
acktung  verdient  der  mit  No.  17  einsetzende  Wecksel  in  der  Haartrackt  auf  der 
Vs. : an  die  Stelle  der  parallel  in  die  Stirn  fallenden  Perlstraknen  tritt  die  Sckei- 
tolnng.  Sie  ergibt  beiderseits  zwei  von  der  Stirnmitte  ausgekende  Haarwellen, 
deren  tiefere,  zwiscken  Auge  und  Okrsckmuck  kerunterkangend,  wieder  kock- 
genommen  und  durck  die  Binde  befestigt  ist.  Im  Gegensatz  zu  diesen  Wellen- 
linien  bleibt  das  Haar  oberhalb  der  Binde  nack  wie  vor  geperlt. 

No.  23.  24  setzen  die  Stilentwicklung  fort:  die  Typen  sind  nock  arckaisck,  aber 
das  Gesicht  ersckeint  nickt  mekr  so  in  die  Lange  gezogen  und  das  steife  Lackeln 
gemildert.  Bei  einzelnen  Exemplaren  ist  deutlich  die  Iris  eingezeicknet.  Die  Haar- 
trackt des  Doppelkopfes  bleibt  dieselbe  wie  bei  No.  17 — 22,  nur  sind  die  drei  kinten 
lu'raljfallenden  Locken  zuweilen  etwas  kiirzer  und  die  Haarwelle  zwiscken  Auge 
und  Okrsckmuck  weniger  betont.  Am  Helmkessel  des  Atkenakopfes  kekren  Scklange 
nnd  Kranz  wieder,  auck  im  Feld  r.  Beizeicken  oder  Monogramm. 

Auf  No.  25 — 29  sckreitet  die  Milderung  des  archaiscken  Lackelns  weiter  fort. 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 


9 


der  innere  Augenwinkel  wird  mehr  und  mehr  gedfFnet  und  vielfach,  besonders  bei 
dem  Atbenakopf,  die  Iris  angegeben.  Die  Abschwacbung  des  Typischen  in  der 
Haartracht  des  Doppelkopfes  nimmt  zu,  indem  die  Schlafenwellen  noch  mehr  zuriick- 
treten  und  mit  dem  Rest  des  ofFenbar  nicbt  mebr  verstandenen  kyprischen  Ohr- 
sckmuckes  verschmelzen,  die  hinten  herabfallenden  Locken  sick  bei  No.  25 — 27  auf 
zwei  vermindern  und  bei  No.  28.  29  ganz  versckwinden.  Dafiir  wird  bei  No.  28  die 
kahle  Halsflacke  durch  eine  leickte  senkrechte  Mittelfurcke  belebt  und  so  zum  ersten 
Male  die  Andeutung  zweier  Halse  versucht. 

Nach  diesem  tlberblick  stellt  Gruppe  II  ein  stilistisck  und  typologiscli  eng 
zusammengeschlossenes  Ganzes  dar.  Ihren  Beginn  setzt  Wrotk  (Brit.  Cat.  Mysia, 
Introd.  S.  XX)  mit  richtigem  Empfinden  um  500  vor  Chr.  an,  walirend  Babelon 
(Traite  II,  1,  Sp.  385  f.)  ikn  bis  ca.  520  kinaufriickt,  und  zwar  unter  dem  EinfluB 
der  Deutung,  die  Six')  dem  athenischen ^)  Trihemiobolion  mit  einem  aknlicken 
Doppelkopf  auf  der  Vs.  gegeben  bat  (Tafel  I,  11a).  Dieses  attiscke  Milnzchen  soil 
danach  die  uns  aus  Tkuc.  VI,  59  bekannten  Beziekungen  des  Hippias  zu  dem  1am- 
psakeniscken  Tyrannen  Hippoklos  illustrieren.  Dem  stekt  jedock  entgegen,  daB  zu 
der  kierfiir  in  Betrackt  kommenden  Zeit  (vom  Tode  des  Hipparckos  bis  zur  Ver- 
treibung  des  Hippias,  also  514 — 511  vor  Ckr.),  wie  uns  Gruppe  I lehrt,  das  kalbe 
Eliigelpferd  als  Stadtwappen  von  Lampsakos  gait  und  nickt  der  unzweifelhaft  erst 
nach  500  auftauckende  Doppelkopf.  Der  diesem  ahnlicke^)  Vs.-Typus  des  atheni- 
schen  Geprages  kann  also  mit  dem  lampsakenischen  Miinzbild  nickt  s zu  tun  haben, 
das  bei  seinem  ersten  Ersckeinen  (Tafel  I,  12),  selbst  wenn  man  die  damalige  IJber- 
legenheit  der  kleinasiatisch-ionischen  Kunst  in  Recknung  stellt,  einen  solcken  Fort- 
schritt  gegeniiber  Tafel  1, 11a  bedeutet,  daB  eine  Umkekrung  ikrer  zeitlicken  Reihen- 
folge  ganzlich  ausgescklossen  ist  und  nur  mit  der  Annakme  eines  zufalligen  Fehlens 
mehrerer  Vorstufen  sick  der  Gedanke  einer  atkeniscken  Entlehnung  des  Doppel- 
kopfes aus  Lampsakos  halten  lieBe^).  Nickt  besser  stekt  es  mit  dem  von  Gardner 
(a.  a.  0.  S.  161)  mit  Recht  als  „fanciful“  bezeichneten  Versuch  von  Six^),  den  (nack 
1.  oder  r.  gewendeten)  weiblicken  Kopf  auf  der  Rs.  athenischer  Halbdrackmen  ®)  der 


0 Num.  chron.  1805,  S.  172ff. ; ihm  stimmen  zu: 
Lermann,  Athenatypen  aUf  griechischen  Miinzen 
(1900),  S.  17  ff.;  Babelon,  Journ.  intern,  d’ar- 
cbe'ol.  numism.  Vlll  (1905),  S.  33  ff.  und  Corolla 
numismatica  (1906),  S.  3;  Kambanis,  Bull,  de 
corr.  hell.  XXX  (1906),  S.  75  f. ; Gardner,  History 
of  ancient  coinage  (1018),  S.  160  f. 

^)  Dafi  uns  in  dem  angeblich  1,55  g wiegenden 
Exemplar  des  Atbener  Kabinetts  eine  lampsake- 
nische,  den  leichteren  zu  London  und  Paris  mit 
1,09  bzw.  0,98  g dagegen  athenische  Emissionen 
dieser  Miinze  vorliegen  sollen  (Six,  a.  a.  0.  S.  174 
und  ihm  folgend  Lermann  S.  18 ; Babelon,  Journ. 
intern.  1905,  S.  36),  ware  ausgescklossen,  auch 
wenn  Six  im  iibrigen  recht  hatte.  Es  kann 
sich,  falls  die  liobe  Gewicbtsangabe  stimmt, 
was  jetzt  nicbt  festzustellen  ist,  nur  um  ein 
ubergewicbtiges  Stuck  haudeln.  Die  zwei  Exem- 


plare  der  Berliner  Sammlung  wiegen  0,99  und 
0,97  g,  zwei  in  Hirscb’s  Auktionskat.  XIII  (1905) 
unter  No  1952  f.  verzeichnete  0,98  und  1,00  g. 

®)  Auf  die  Abweicbungen  soil  wegen  seines  sehr 
kleinen  MaBstabes  kein  Gewicht  gelegt  werden. 

^)  Die  gleicben  Argumente  fiihrt,  wie  icb  nacb- 
traglich  sebe,  A.  Baldwin  (S.  23)  ins  Feld,  obne 
sich  jedoch  zu  einer  vblligen  Preisgabe  der 
Six’schen  These  entschlieBen  zu  konnen. 

^)  Num.  chron.  1895,  S.  174.  Auch  hierin  folgen 
ihm  Lermann  (Athenatypen  S.  18  f.)  und  Kam- 
banis (a.  a.  0.  S.  75  f.),  wahrend  Babelon  (Journ. 
intern.  1905,  S.  37  ff..  Corolla  S.  4 und  Traite 
11,1,  Sp.  756f.),  nicht  weniger  phantastisch, 
in  dem  fraglichen  Kopf  die  Nymphe  Larissa 
sieht,  die  des  Hippias  Biindnis  mit  den  Aleuaden 
(Herod.  V,  63)  bekunden  soil. 

®)  Vgl.  z.  B.  Tafel  I,  32  (Berlin;  2,15  g). 


10 


H.  Gaebler, 


gleiclien  Zeit  als  bildlichen  Aiisdruck  der  durch  Herod.  V,  63  tind  91'  iiberlieferten 
Verbindung  de.s  Hippias  mit  Sparta  glalibbaft  zu  machen,  wie  schon  von  Fritze 
dargetan  liat  (Wochenschr.  f.  Mass.  Philol.  1900,  No.  46,  Sp.  1250  f.).  Fine  ErMii- 
rung  fiir  das  Erscbeinen  der  beiden  fremden  Typen*)  in  der  athenischen  Silber- 
pragnng  ist  einstweilen  nicbt  nioglicli,  und  auch  Grardner’s  Gedanke,  man  babe 
dadurch  nnr  das  ungewohnliche  Nominal  markieren  wollen,  scbeitert  daran,  daB  die 
Miinzen  mit  dem  weiblicken  Kopf  auf  der  E,s.  nicbt  Tribemiobolien,  wie  er  sie 
falscblicb  nennt,  sondern  Triobolen  (Halbdracbmen)  sind. 

Die  Zeitbestimmung  fiir  unsere  Gruppe  II  ist  also  einzig  und  allein  auf  die 
Stilanalyse  zu  griinden.  Als  wertvolles  Hiilfsinittel  sind  zu  diesem  Zweck  die 
atbeniscben  Silbermiinzen  beranzuzieben,  wenngleicb  aucb  bier  der  Weg  erst  geebnet 
werden  muB.  Das  beziebt  sicb  auf  die  viel  umstrittene  Frage,  wann  der  jiingere, 
spatarcbaiscbe  Atbenakopf-Typus  auf  den  Miinzen  eingefiibrt  witrde.  Wabrend 
Head  (Hist,  num.^,  S.  369  if.)  diese  Neuerung  dem  Hippias  (514 — 511  vor  Cbr.)  zu- 
scbreibt,  was  keiner  Widerlegung  bedarf,  pladieren  Six  (Num.  chron.  1895,  S.  176  if.) 
und  Babelon  (Journ.  internal.  VIII,  1905,  S.  40  ff.  — Traite  II,  1,  Sp.  765  f.)  fiir  die 
Schlacht  bei  Maratbon  (490)  als  AnlaB,  Lermann  (Atbenatypen  S.  21  if.)  und  von 
Fritze  (Wocbenscbr.  f.  Mass.  Pbilol.  1900,  No.  46,  Sp.  1252  f.)  fiir  das  Befreiungs- 
jabr  480.  Ganz  unklar  ist  die  Stellungnabme  Gardner’s  (History  of  ancient  coinage, 
S.  161  if.),  der  zwar  Six  und  Babelon  beziiglicb  der  Scblacbt  von  Maratbon  zustimmt, 
das  Erscbeinen  der  Olivenblatter  an  Atbenas  Helm  aber  „very  shortly  before  480 
B.C.“  ansetzt,  die  Dekadracbmen  „among  tbe  earliest"  mit  dem  neuen  Typus 
recbnet  und  sie  anderseits  als  gleicbzeitig  mit  den  syrakusaniscben  Demareteia 
(479  vor  Cbr.)  binstellt.  Die  Widerspriicbe  in  Gardner’s  Darlegung  lassen  sicb  nun 
in  iiberrascbender  Weise  vereinigen  durcb  den  Hinweis  auf  eine  von  ibm  nicbt  be- 
acbtete  Gruppe  arcbaiscber  Tetradracbmen,  die  bereits  den  Helm  der  Atbena 
mit  den  Olivenblattern  gescbrniickt  zeigen  (z.  B.  Tafel  I,  34 — 37).  Sie  lebren  uns, 
wie  zuerst  M.  Kambanis  festgestellt  bat  ^),  daB  die  Anbringung  dieser  Zier  und  das 
Erscbeinen  des  neuen,  spatarcbaiscben  Kopftypus  zeitlicb  von  einander  zu  trennen 
sind,  erstere  also  den  Sieg  bei  Maratbon  verberrlicbt  ^),  letzterer  eine  Scbopfung 
der  mit  dem  Jabre  480  verknupften  glorreicben  Wiedergeburt  Athens  darstellt. 


0 Als  dritter  tritt  ein  wenig  spater  der  Kopf 
eines  Negers  liinzu,  den  ein  mit  der  Sammlung 
von  Prokesch-Osten  (Inedita,  1859,  S.  16,  2,  Taf. 
II,  34  ganz  unzulanglich  abgebildet  und  des- 
balb  bier  auf  Tafel  1,38  wiederholt)  in  das 
Berliner  Kabinett  gelangtes  Halbdracbmenstiick 
(2,09  g)  zeigt  und  zu  dem  nur  bemerkt  sei, 
daB  er,  weil  stilistiscb  alter,  nicbt  von  Delphi 
entlehnt  sein  kann,  dessen  Negerkopf  (Brit. 
Cat.  Central  Greece,  Taf.  IV,  5—8)  als  der  my- 
tbisclie  Stadtgriinder  Delphos,  Sobn  des  Po- 
seidon und  der  Nymphe  Melaina,  gedeutet  wird 
(Panofka,  Delphi  und  Melaine,  9.  Berliner 
Winckelm.-Progr.  1849,  S.  7), 
bei  der  Veroffentlicbung  von  9 aus  einera  neueren 
Funde  stammenden  atbeniscben  Silbermiinzen, 


unter  denen  sicb  drei  solcher  arcbaiscber  Tetra- 
drachmen  mit  Olivenblattern  am  Helm  befinden. 
Bull,  de  corr.  hell.  XXX  (1906),  S.  58  ff.'  Wohl 
hiernacb  Regling,  Numism.  Literatur-Blatt  1921, 
No.  216/217,  S.  1798  und  ibm  zustimmend  Hill, 
Num.  chron.  1921,  S.  170, 

0 Dazu  stimmt,  daB  unter ' den  im  J.  1839  am 
Berge  Athos  gefundenen  athenischen  Tetra- 
drachmen,  die  zur  Zeit  der  persischen  Invasion 
von  480  in  die  Erde  gekommen  sind,  sich  auch 
schon  (mindestens)  1 Exemplar  mit  den  Oliven- 
blattern am  Helm  befand ; vgl.  hieriiber  zuletzt 
Gardner,  a.  a.  0.  S.  162.  Probleraatisch  dagegen 
bleibt  die  chronologische  Verwertung  des  Akro- 
polisfundes  vom  J.  1886,  vgl.  von  Fritze,  a.  a.  0. 
Sp.  1253  und  Kambanis,  a.  a.  0.  S.  87  ff. 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 


11 


Diese  Chroiiologie  steht  in  vollstem  Einklang  mit  dem,  was  wir  iiber  die  sti- 
listisclie  Entwickelnng  der  attischeii  Marmorplastik  wissen.  Wenn  Lermann  (a.  a.  0. 
S.  32)  mit  Eecht  den  neuen  Miinztypus  als  ,,von  jiingereni  Stile  als  die  bekannten 
Madchenstatuen  der  Akropolis,  die  der  Mekrzahl  nach  wobl  aus  dem  letzten  Jahr- 
zehnte  des  6.  Jahrbunderts  stammen  mbgen“,  erklart,  so  ist  bier  insbesondere  au£ 
die  Entkydikos-Eigur  (Scbrader,  Answahl  archaisclier  Marmor-Skulpturen  im  Akro- 
polis-Museum,  S.  34  f.,  Fig.  34.  35)  und  den  Kopf  des  „blonden“  Epkeben  (Scbrader, 
a.  a.  0.  S.  55,  Fig.  60)  binznweisen,  die,  einander  stilistiscb  nabestebend,  die  jiing- 
sten  Werke  der  Reibe  sind.  Die  bei  der  Auffindung  des  Epbebenkopfes  nocb  un- 
gewobnlicb  friscben  Farbspnren  lassen  diesen  und  mit  ibm  die  Eutbydikos-Statue 
als  kurz  vor  480  aufgestellt  erkennen,  und  nun  beacbte  man,  wie  iiberaus  nabe 
ibnen  stilistiscb  der  neue  Atbenatypus  der  Miinzen  (Tafel  I,  39 — 43)  verwandt  ist 
und  welcl^er  Abstand  die  an  490  beranzuriickenden  Kopfe  Tafel  I,  34.  35  von  ibnen 
trennt.  Wenn  letztere  aucb,  verglicben  mit  ibren  Vorgangern  aus  der  streng- 
arcbaiscben  Stilepocbe,  bereits  einen  Fortscbritt  bedeuten,  indem  bei  zwar  nocb 
ganz  en  face  stebendem  Auge  der  gewolbte  Augapfel  mit  dem  glotzenden  Blick 
verscbwunden  ist,  sind  anderseits  die  plumpe  Nase  und  die  dicken  Lippen  nocb  ge- 
blieben,  bis  aucb  darin  eine  Milderung  eintritt,  wie  Tafel  I,  36.  37  zeigen,  bei  denen 
auberdem  das  Bestreben  obwaltete,  das  Spitz winkelige  der  Profillinie  durcb  Vor- 
scbieben  des  Unterkiefers  zu  vermeiden.  So  bildet  diese  Grruppe  (Tafel  I,  34 — 37) 
den  IJbergang  zu  dem  beiter  monumentalen  Stil  des  Dekadracbmons  und  seiner 
Zeitgenossen,  man  empfindet  das  tastende  Versucben,  das  dem  grofien  Wurf  voran- 
gebt,  der  nunmebr  fiir  lange  Zeit  den  Cbarakter  der  atbeniscben  Miinze  bestimmt. 

Dab  aucb  ein  vergleicbender  Blick  auf  den  Harmodioskopf  der  Tyrannenmorder- 
gruppe  (ca.  477/6  vor  Chr.)  sowie  die  Vasenbilder  des  Eupbronios  und  verwandter 
Kiinstler,  deren  Bliitezeit  „gegen  490  vor  Cbr.“  anzusetzen  ist^),  zu  dem  gleicben 
Resultat  fiibrt,  braucbt  bier  mit  dem  Huiweis  auf  Lermann’s  Darlegungen  (Atbena- 
typen  S.  34  f.)  nur  kurz  erwabnt  zu  werden.  Und  wenn  Furtwangler  (Aegina, 
S.  354)  erklart,  dab  man  in  der  Datierung  der  aginetischen  Tempelskulpturen  nur 
scbwanken  konne  „zwiscben  dem  Dezennium  490 — 480  und  der  Zeit  unmittelbar 
nach  480“,  so  steht  aucb  damit  unsere  Chronologie  der  Tetradracbmen  Tafel  I,  34 — 43 
in  bestem  Einklang.  Denn  wie  dort  die  Athena  des  alteren  Westgiebels  nocb  die 
Stirnlocken  tragt,  die  bei  der  des  jiingeren  Ostgiebels  der  Scbeitelung  gewicben 
sind,  ist  bier  genau  derselbe  Wechsel  in  der  Haartracht  zu  beobacbten.  Der  neue, 
spatarcbaiscbe  Atbenakopftypus  (Tafel  I,  39 — 43)  zeigt  das  Haar  nicht  mebr  nach 
alter  Weise  wie  nocb  bei  Tafel  I,  34 — 37  in  die  Stirn  fallend,  sondern  iiber  ibr 
gescbeitelt.  Dabei  wird  die  geteilte  Haarpartie  wellenformig  nach  beiden  Seiten 
(man  siebt  nur  die  rechte)  auseinandergestricben,  dann  unter  die  (vom  Helm  ver- 
deckte)  Binde  hocbgenommen,  fallt  iiber  ibr  nach  vorn  zuriick,  einen  die  Scblafe 
bedeckenden  Bausch  bildend,  und  verscbwindet  binter  dem  Obr.  So  ist  es  z.  B.  bei 
Tafel  I,  39  und  acbt  von  den  neun  bekannten  Dekadracbmen -).  Bald  aber  tritt 
eine  kleine  Anderung  ein,  indem  man  die  iiber  der  Stirn  liegende  Haarpartie  dann 


0 Vgl,  Furt^?angler,  Beschreibung  der  Glyptothek 
(1900),  S.  162  und  neuestens  Langlotz,  Zur 
Zeitbestimnrang  der  strengrotfigurigon  Vasen- 


malerei  und  der  gleichzeitigen  Plastik  (1920), 
S.  61  ff.  und  S.  109  ff. 

^)  Zu  den  7 von  Hill,  Num.  chron.  1921,  S.  169  f. 


12 


H.  Gaebler, 


von  oben  durch  die  Binde  steckt,  so  dab  sie  nicht  iiber,  sondern  unter  der  Stirn- 
welle  wieder  zum  V orsckein  kommt  (v^l.  Tafel  I,  40 — 43  sowie,  was  Hill  nicht 
bemerkt  hat,  das  von  ihm  verotFentlichte  neuerworbene  Dekadrachmon  des  British 
Museum,  Num.  chron.  1921,  Taf.  V,  16).  Dab  diese  zweite  Frisur  die  spatere  ist, 
ergibt  sich  unzweideutig  aus  dem  altertiimlichen  Aussehen,  das  der  tief  bis  auf  die 
Wange  hinabreichende  Haarbausch  hervorruft  (Tafel  I,  39),  wahrend  dessen  Ver- 
kurzung  und  schwunghaftes  Aufnehmen  zum  Ohre  hin  (Tafel  I,  40 — 43)  einen  vor- 
geschrittenen,  fast  eleganten  Eindruck  macht. 

Mit  den  so  fiir  die  Chronologie  der  athenischen  Silberpragung  gewonnenen  Er- 
gebnissen  an  unsere  lampsakenische  G-ruppe  II  herantretend,  kbnnen  wir  mit  ziem- 
licher  Sicherheit  die  Emission  No.  17  (Tafel  I,  17),  bei  deren  Doppelkopf  zum  ersten 
Male  die  Scheitelung  auftritt,  den  alteren  Dekadrachmen  sowie  Tafel  I,  39  zeitlich 
gleichsetzen.  Die  Ubereinstimmung  in  der  Haartracht  erstreckt  sich  sogar  bis  auf 
die  oben  erbrterte  besondere  Art,  wie  der  die  Schlafe  bedeckende  Haarbausch  hervor- 
gebracht  ist.  Und  auch  die.  bei  Tafel  I,  40 — 43  sowie  dem  jiingeren  Dekadrachmon 
zu  beobachtende  Anderung  darin  machen  die  lampsakenischen  Miinzen  mit,  wie 
No.  23 — 29  (Tafel  I,. 23 — 31),  allerdings  in  nicht  so  klarer  Wiedergabe,  erkennen 
lassen.  An  der  Parallelitat  der  beiden  in  Rede  stehenden  Miinzreihen  (Tafel  1, 17 — 31 
und  39 — 43)  ist  hiernach  kein  Zweifel  moglich.  Freilich  sind  die  lampsakenischen 
Geprage  von  flacherem  Relief  und  entbehren  des  monumental-dekorativen  Ausdrucks, 
der  ihnen  gegeniiber  in  alien  Einzelheiten  des  siegesfrohen  attischen  Athenakopfes 
eine  wesentliche  Steigerung  hervortreten  lafit,  doch  ist  anderseits  eine  gewi'sse 
stilistische  Uberlegenheit  bei  ihnen  unverkennbar,  die  dem  Entwickelungsstadium  der 
kleinasiatisch-ionischen  Kunst  durchaus  entspricht.  Das  Typische  der  Periode  aber 
bleibt  davon  unberiihrt,  nur  verdient  die  fast  senkrechte  Stirnlinie,  worauf  noch 
zuriickzukommen  sein  wird,  Beachtung.  Ein  Streben  nach  vereinfachender  Eleganz 
kommt  zum  Ausdruck  in  der  zunehmenden  V erkleinerung  des  die  Schlafe  bedeckenden 
Haarbausches  und  der  immer  schlichteren  Wiedergabe  der  drei  Halslocken,  die  dann 
noch  auf  zwei  vermindert  werden  (Tafel  I,  27.  28)  und  schliefilich  ganz  verschwinden 
(Tafel  I,  29—31). 

Fiir  die  Emissionen  No.  17—29  unserer  Gruppe  II  kann  auf  Grund  ihrer  Pa- 
rallelitat mit  den  athenischen  Tetradrachmen  Tafel  I,  39 — 43  etwa  das  Jahrzehnt 
480 — 470  als  Entstehungszeit  in  Anspruch  genommen  werden.  Viel  iiber  470  hinab- 
zugehen  verbietet  der  Stil  von  No.  28.  29  ^)  und  ware  auch  unwahrscheinlich  an- 
gesichts  der  auff allend  niedrigen  Zahl  der  auf  uns  gekommenen  Exemplare.  Sie 
erhebt  sich  bei  keiner  Emission  iiber  3 und  deren  zehn  sind  Unika.  Den  Olzweig 
im  Feld  der  Rs.  von  No.  19.  20  und  den  Kranz  um  den  Helm  des  Athenakopfes 
von  No.  21.  22.  23,  b.  24,  a und  27  glauben  Six  (Num.  chron.  1895,  S.  174)  und  ihm 
folgend  Lermann  (Athenatypen  S.  18)  und  Babelon  (Journ.  intern.  VIII,  S.  36; 
Traite  II,  1,  Sp.  386)  plausibel  erklaren  zu  kbnnen  als  Erinnerung  an  das  Biindnis 
der  Stadt  mit  Hippias,  dessen  Enkel,  die  Kinder  aus  der  Ehe  seiner  Tochter  Arche - 
dike  mit  des  lampsakenischen  Tyrannen  Hippoklos  Sohn  Aiantides,  in  ihrer  V ater- 

'■)  So  urteilt , wie  icli  nachtraglich  selie,  aucli 
Agnes  Baldwin,  The  electrum  coinage  of  Lam- 
psakos,  S.  20. 


angefiihrten  Exemplaren  dieser  alteren  Art  ist 
als  achtes  noch  hinzuzuftigen  das  Briisseler 
(41,0(i  g,  AhguB  in  Berlin). 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 


13 


stadt  noch  eine  Rolle  gespielt  haben  mogen.  Hiergegen  ist  einzuwenden,  daB  der 
Helmkranz  angesichts  der  ganz  anders  gestalteten  Helmzier  bei  Tafel  I,  39 — 43 
scliwerlicli  mit  Athen  etwas  zu  tun  baben  kann  und  fiir  den  Olivenzweig  dies  die 
Art  seiner  Anbringung  unwahrsckeinlicb  macht,  die  ihn  als  Magistratssignatur  kenn- 
zeiclinet.  Dazu  kommt,  daB  Lampsakos,  wie  wir  seben  werden  (S.  20  f.),  erst  464 
vor  Chr.  iinter  der  Wirkung  von  Kimon’s  Sieg  am  Euiymedon  in  den  attischen 
Seebund  eintrat,  zur  Zeit  jener  Einissionen  aber  unter  persiseber  Herrsebaft  bliilite 
und  zu  einem  Hinweis  auf  alte  atbenisebe  Beziebungen  wobl  kaum  AiilaB  liatte. 

Haben  wir  so  fiir  die  Emissionen  No.  17 — 29  unserer  Clruppe  II  das  Jabi’  480 
als  terminus  post  quern  gewonnen,  so  ergibt  sicb  fiir  No.  12 — 16  (Tafel  I,  12 — 16) 
ganz  von  selbst  das  voranliegende  Jabrzebnt  als  Entstebungszeit.  Wir  wissen,  daB 
Lampsakos  fiir  seine  Beteiligung  am  „lonischen  Aufstand“  mit  der  Einnabme  der 
Stadt  durcb  den  persiseben  FeldEerrn  Daurises  bestraft  wurde  (Herod.  V,  117).  Dies 
gesebab  nacb  Basolt  (Grriecb.  Greseb.^  II,  S.  548)  im  Sommer  498,  nacb  Belocb  (Grriecb. 
Greseb.^  II,  2,  S.  59)  im  Eriibjabr  oder  Sommer  497.  Da  die  eroberten  Stadte  mit 
Milde  bebandelt  wurJen  (Herod.  VI,  42)  und  insbesondere  fiir  Lampsakos  vielleicbt 
die  guten  Beziebungen  des  Hippoklos  und  Aiantides  zu  Dareios  (Herod.  IV,  138) 
nacbwirkten,  so  stebt  der  Annabme  niebts  im  Wege,  daB  die  Stadt  niebt  allzu  lange 
nacb  der  Niederwerfung  des  „Ioniscben  Aufstandes"  (494)  in  der  Lagc  war,  die 
Silberpragung  wieder  aufzunebmen  ^).  Und  der  Stil  der  Emission  No.  12  (Tafel  I,  12) 
ist  mit  einem  Zeitansatz  etwa  um  490  vor  Cbr.  in  vollster  Ubereinstimmung.  Ein 
vergleicbender  Blick  auf  den  Doppelkopf  des  atbeniseben  Tribemiobolions  aus  dem 
Ende  des  VI.  Jabrbunderts  (Tafel  I,  11a)  belebrt  iiber  den  Eortschritt.  Walirend 
dort  das  Auge  nocb  ganz  unorganiscb  wie  aufgelegt  ersebeint,  ist  es  bei  Tafel  I,  12 
mit  fein  abgesetzten  Lidern  sebon  erbeblicb  besser  eingebettet,  und  ebensoweit  ist 
die.  zierlicbe  Bildung  von  Nase  und  Lippen  der  dicken,  plumpen  Formengebung  des 
atbeniseben  Gleprages  voraus,  bei  dem  von  einem  EinfluB  der  iiberlegenen  klein- 
asiatiseb-ioniseben  Kunst  nocb  niebts  zu  spiiren  ist.  Wie  langsam  dieser  die  atti- 
sebe  nacbfolgt,  seben  wir  an  den  bald  nacb  490  entstandenen  Kopfen  Tafel  1,  34 — 37, 
denen  gegentiber  Leistungen  wie  Tafel  I,  33  und  Babelon,  Traite  Taf.  XXXIV,  15 
aus  der  Zeit  kurz  vor  490  in  iiberaus  lehrreicber  Weise  dartun,  wie  ein  in  Klein- 
asien  ausgebildeter  einbeimiseber  oder  ein  von  dort  nacb  Atben  zugewanderter 
Stempelscbneider  dieser  Epoebe  seine  Aufgabe  zu  Ibsen  verstand.  Beaebtung  ver- 
dient  das  aucb  bier  beibebaltene  starke  Zuriickweichen  der  Stirn  im  Giegensatz  zu 
dem  Tribemiobolion  (Tafel  I,  11a)  und  den  lampsakeniscben  Grepragen  (Tafel  I,  12  ff.). 
Obne  Zweifel  fiibrte  die  Sebeu  vor  dem  ganz  besonders  unsebbnen  Kontur,  den  ein 
beiderseitiges  Vogelprofil  dem  Doppelkopf  verleiben  muBte,  dazu,  bei  diesem  ab- 
weicbend  von  dem  arebaiseben  Schema  die  Stirnlinie  etwas  steiler  aufzuricbten 
(Tafel  I,  12.  13)  und  bald  mebr  und  mebr  der  Senkreebten  zu  nabern  sowie  gleicb- 
zeitig  aucb  das  Kinn,  oft  sogar  iibertrieben,  vorzusebieben. 

Zieben  wir  endlicb  nocb  als  naebstliegenden  Priifstein  die  kyzikenisebe  Elektron- 
pragung  beran,  so  zeigt  sicb,  daB  unsere  No.  12  (Tafel  I,  12)  etwa  in  der  Mitte 

0 Babelon  (Traite  II,  1,  Sp.  377)  schliefit  irrig  aus  | als  Tyrannen  einsetzte.  Es  baudelt  sicb  an  je- 
Herod.  IV,  138,  daB  Dareios  den  Wiederaufbau  ; ner  Stelle  vielmebr  um  den  skytbiscben  Feld- 

von  Lampsakos  gestattete  und  Hippoklos  dort  I zug  des  Dareios  im  Jahre  514  vor  Cbr. 

3 


14 


H.  Gaebler, 


steht  zwischen  den  jiingsten  Kopfen  der  Grruppe  II  a (Nomisma  VII,  Taf.  II,  17 — 20) 
and  dem  Jiinglingskopf  auf  dem  Diskos  in  Gruppe  II  b.  c (ebenda  Taf.  Ill,  24).  Bei 
ersteren  unverkennbar  eine  voranliegende  Kunststufe,  wie  die  plump  anslaufende, 
dicke  Nase  and  die  scbematiscbe  Wiedergabe  der  Lippen  sowie  der  Scbwellang  von 
Kinn  mid  Wange  bezeagen,  bei  letzterem  ebenso  offenkandig  der  'wesentliclie  Fort- 
.schritt,  den  trotz  fliicbtigerer  Arbeit' die  proportioniertere  Nase,  die  steile  Profil- 
linie  and  das  voile  Kinn  dartan.  Da  nan  fiir  den  jiingsten  Kopf  der  kyzikenischen 
Grappe  II  a (Nomisma  VII,  Taf.  II,  20)  in  dem  dortigen  Zasammenhang  das  Ende 
des  VI.  Jabrbnnderts  vor  Chr.,  fiir  den  Jiinglingskopf  aaf  dem  Diskos  (ebenda 
Taf.  Ill,  24)  ca.  480  als  Entstebangszeit  sick  erweisen  lieB  (von  Fritze,  a.  a.  0.  S.  23), 
spricbt  aacb  das  Resultat  dieser  Gegeniib erstellang  dafiir,  No.  12  and  damit  den 
Beginn  anserer  Grappe  II,  wie  oben  gescbehen,  am  490  vor  Cbr.  anzusetzen. 

Die  drei  Exemplare  von  Ko.  12  wiegen  3,82  (London),  3,70  (Gotha)  and  3,59  g 
(Wien,  abgenatzt).  A.  Baldwin,  die  nar  das  erste  kennf,  sieht  darin  ein  Tetrobol 
persisclier  Wahrang  (S.  19).  Da  dessen  Normalgewicht,  aas  dem  persischen  Stater 
von  11,20  g abgeleitet,  sick  aaf  ca.  3,73  g stellt,  ist  man  fiir  den  Betrag  von  3,82  g 
zar  Annakme  leickter  IJb erge wicktigkeit  genotigt,  wird  aber  trotzdem  A.  Baldwin 
beistimmen  and,  weitergekend,  dem  Gedanken  Baam  geben,  daB  die  Stadt  Lampsakos 
bei  der  W iederaafnakme  ikrer  Silberpragang  wokl  deskalb  zaerst  gerade  dieses  ikr 
bisker  fremde  Kominal  pragte,  weil  es  zagleich  als  Halbdrackme  (normal  ca.  3,85  g) 
des  den  Silberemissionen  No.  1 — 9 sowie  den  parallelen  Elektronstateren  zagrande 
liegenden  Systems  gewertet  werden  konnte  and  so  aafs  beste  den  tlbergang  za 
dem  neaen  MiinzfaB  vermittelte.  Dem  gleicken  Zweck  diente  ofFenbar  aack  die 
V ielgestaltigkeit  der  anmittelbar  folgenden , eine  kleine  Sender  grappe  bildenden 
Emissionen  No.  13 — 16  and  die  aaffallige  Form  der  dabei  gewahlten  Abstafang. 
Sie  gesellt  namlich  za  der  nanmehr  das  Haaptnominal  werdenden  persischen 
Drackme  von  ca.  5,60  g Normalgewicht  (No.  13)  nickt  nur  den  Obol  (No.  15) 
mit  ca.  0,93  g,  sondern  aack  das  in  praxi  den  alteren  Obolen  (No.  4.  5.  7.  9)  ge- 
wichtsgleicke  Trihemiobolion  (No.  14)  mit  normal  ca.  1,40  g and  dessen  Halfte, 
das  Tritemorion  (No.  16)  mit  normal  ca.  0,70  g^).  W ahrend  letzteres  sick,  wie  oben 
S.  7 bemerkt,  darck  den  geringeren  Darckmesser  des  Sckrotlings  and  den  kleineren 
MaBstab  der  Miinzbilder  als  anterstes  Teilstiick  za  erkennen  gibt,  werden  die  Obole 
(No.  15)  von  den  gleick  groBen  and  nar  wenig  sckwereren  Trikemiobolien  (No.  14) 
aaSerlick  darck  Anbringang  eines  vierspeickigen  Hades  am  Helmkessel  des  Atkena- 
kopfes  anterschieden.  Nach  dieser  IJbergangszeit  besckrankte  man  sick  kinfort  aaf 
die  Pragang  von  Drachmen  (No.  17.  19.  21.  23.  25.  26.  28)  and  Obolen  (No.  18.  20. 
22.  24.  27.  29),  and  zwar  mit  zunekmender  Abknappang,  infolge  deren  allmaklick 
das  Darckscknittsgewickt  der  ersteren  von  5,12  (No.  13)  aaf  4,58  g (No.  28),  der 
letzteren  von  0,86  (No.  15)  auf  0,68  g (No.  29)  sinkt. 


0 Die  neue  (persische)  Drachme  von  ca.  5, GO  g 
cntsprach  mit  Hinzuf'iigung  eines  Trihemiobo- 
lions  (ca.  1,40  g)  genau  dem  ca.  7,08  g schweren 
milesischen  Didrachmon  (No.  10)  der  Aufstands- 
])ragung  und  lieB  sich  anderseits  sebr  praktisch 
durrh  Abzug  eines  Tritemorions  (ca.  0,70  g) 
vier  alten  Obolen  wie  No.  4.  5.  7.  9 (4x  1,28  = 


5,12)  Oder  zwei  Diobolen  wie  No.  1 — 3.  6.  8 
gleicbsetzen,  wobei  deren  Gewichtsverlust,  wie 
ihn  die  normale  Abnutzung  mit  sich  brachte 
und  die  notwendige  Addition  mebrerer  Einzel- 
stixcke  (4  bzw.  2)  wohl  meist  noch  erhohte,  zu 
vermutlich  tarifmaBigem  Ausdruck  kara.  Vgl. 
unten  S.  29. 


15 


Die  Silberpriigung  von  Lampsakos. 

Gr upp e III. 

inm 

30)  14  Vs.  Weiblicher  Doppelkopf  mit  geteilter  Bind?  im  frei  gewellten  Haar 

unci  gemeinsamem  Ohrschmuck.  [Pkr.].- 
Es.  Kopf  der  Athena  mit  hinten  lang  herabhangendem,  lockigen  Haar  und 
korinthischem  Helm  (obne  Busch)  nach  r.,  am  Helmkessel  Lbwenkopf 
mit  ofFenem  Eachen  nach  obeu;  im  Feld  1.  Keiykeion.  Feld  rundlich 
vertieft.  — Tafel  II,  1 (Unikum). 

31)  9 Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  30,  doch  das  Haar  geperlt.  Pkr. 

Es.  Athenakopf  mit  hinten  lang  herabhangendem,  lockigen  Haar  und 
korinthischem  Helm  (ohne  Busch)  nach  r.  Feld  rundlich  vertieft.  — 
Tafel  II,  2 (Unikum). 

32)  8 Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  31. 

Es.  Athenakopf  wie  bei  No.  31,  aber  linkshin.  Feld  quadratisch  vertieft. 
— Tafel  II,  3 (Unikum). 

33)  13  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  31.  32. 

Es.  AAM  r.,  AY  1.  Athenakopf  wie  bei  No.  31.  Feld  rundlich  vertieft. — 
Tafel  II,  4. 

34)  12  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  31 — 33,  dock  ohne  Pkr. 

Es.  AAIMYIA  oben,  r.,  1.  oder  AjAMYlA  oben,  r.,  1.  Athenakopf  wie  bei 
No.  31.  Feld  quadratisch  vertieft.  — Tafel  II,  5. 

35)  12  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  34;  der  Halsabschnitt  durch  einen  nach  r.  gewendeten 

Delphin  verdeckt.  ^ 

Es.  AAjMlY  oben,  r.,  1.  Athenakopf  wie  bei  No.  31,  aber  die  Helmform 
weniger  streng.  Feld  quadratisch  vertieft.  — Tafel  II,  6. 

36)  11  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  34;  der  Halsabschnitt  durch  eine  Ahre  (Spitze  1.  oder  r.) 

verdeckt. 

Es.  AIAMY  oben  und  r.,  A 1.  Ebenso  wie  No.  35.  — Tafel  II,  7. 

37)  11  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  30,  doch  Ohrschmuck  mit  traubenfbrmigem  Anhanger; 

der  Halsabschnitt  durch  eine  Ahre  (Spitze  r.)  verdeckt. 

Es.  A AMY  A oben,  r.,  1.  oder  A'AMYA  oben  und  r.  Athenakopf  wie  bei 
No.  35,  aber  mit  einer  hinten  uber  den  Nacken  hinabreichenden  Leder- 
kappe  unter  dem  Helm.  Feld  rundlich  vertieft.  — Tafel  II,  8. 

38)  11  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  34;  auf  dem  Halse  ein  nach  1.  gewendeter  Delphin. 

Es.  Ebenso  wie  No.  35.  — Tafel  II,  9. 

39)  11  Vs.  Weiblicher  Doppelkopf  mit  geteilter  Binde  und  gemeinsamem  Ohr- 

schmuck, das  Haar  in  parallelen  Bogenlinien,  iiber  der  Stirn  geperlt; 
auf  dem  Halse  OZO. 

Es.  AAM  oben  und  r.,  AY  1.  Athenakopf  wie  bei  No.  35.  Feld  (rundlich) 
schwach  vertieft.  — Tafel  II,  10. 

40)  11  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  39,  aber  auf  dem  Halse  GEO. 

Es.  AAMIYA  oben  und  r.  Ebenso  wie  No.  39.  — Tafel  II,  11. 

41)  11  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  39,  aber  auf  dem  Halse  lAO. 

Es.  AA  M oben  und  r.,  AY  1.  oder  AAiMlY  oben,  r.,  1.  Ebenso  wie  No.  39.  — 
Tafel  11,12. 


3* 


H.  Gaebler 


42)  12  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  39,  aber  auf  dem  Halse  KPI. 

Rs.  AAM  oben  uiK^r.,  AY  unten.  Ebenso  wie  No.  39,  aber  im  Feld  1.  unten 
Krater.  — Tafel  II,  13. 

43)  12  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  42. 

Rs.  AAMIYA  oben  und  r.  Ebenso  wie  No.  42,  aber  der  Helm  bekranzt.  — 
Tafel  II,  14. 

44)  12  Vs.  Weiblicher  Doppelkopf  mit  geteilter  Binde  und  gemeinsamem  Ohr- 

schmuck,  das  Haar  wie  bei  No.  39. 

Rs.  AAIMY  A 1.,  oben,  r.  Ebenso  wie  No.  39,  aber  am  Helmkessel  Oliven- 
blatt  mit  Frncht.  — Tafel  II,  15. 

45)  12  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  44,  doch  statt  der  Binde  je  eine  Ahre  mit  Blatt;  das 

Haar  auf  dem  Schadel  nur  durch  Punktierung  des  Konturs  angedentet. 
Rs.  [AAM]  oben,  AY  1.  Ebenso  wie  No.  39,  aber  im  Feld  r.  groBe  Mond- 
sichel  (Hbhlnng  1.).  — Tafel  II,  16  (Unikum). 

46)  12  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  44,  doch  ohne  das  geperlte  Stirnhaar. 

Rs.  A AMYA  oben  und  r.  Ebenso  wie  No.  35.  36.  — Tafel  II,  17. 

47)  11  Vs.  Doppelkopf  wie  bei  No.  31,  die  Binde  breiter,  das  Stirnhaar  als  drei- 

fache  Perlreihe  stilisiert. 

Rs.  AAM  1.,  oben,  r.,  Y senkrecht  r.  unten.  Athenakopf  wie  bei  No.  35, 
doch  vor  dem  Ohr  eine  lange  Locke  einzeln  herabhangend.  Feld  rund- 
lich  vertieft.  — Tafel  II,  18. 

48)  11  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  47. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  47,  aber  im  Feld  unten  Beizeichen.  — Tafel  II,  19. 

49)  11  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  47.  48,  doch  mit  schmaler  Binde. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  47.  — Tafel  II,  20. 

50)  11  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  47,  doch  das  Stirnhaar  mit  nur  zwei  Perlreihen. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  47,  aber  im  Feld  unten  Epheublatt  (Spitze  r.).  • — Tafel 

II,  21  (Unikum). 

51)  12  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  50. 

Rs.  AAlMiY  oben,  r.,  1.  Athenakopf  wie  bei  No.  47,  aber  mit  zwei  von 
der  Hauptmasse  losgelosten  Einzellocken  und  der  Helm  bekranzt.  Feld 
rundlich  vertieft.  — Tafel  II,  22. 

52)  12  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  49,  aber  mit  einem  Halsband,  das  in  der  Mitte,  sich  ver- 

breiternd,  nach  oben  und  unten  spitz  zulauft. 

Rs.  AAMIY  oben,  r.,  1.  Ebenso  wie  No.  51,  doch  die  beiden  Einzellocken 
bewegt  nach  vorn  flatternd  und  der  Helm  ohne  Kranz.  — Tafel  II,  23. 

53)  12  Vs.  Doppelkopf  wie  bei  No.  44,  aber  auch  das  Stirnhaar  nicht  geperlt, 

sondern  in  kleinen  Wiilsten. 

Rs.  AAiM  oben  und  r.  Athenakopf  wie  bei  No.  52,  doch  mit  Ohrgehange 
und  Perlenhalsband,  die  Helmform  noch  mehr  entartet  und  statt  der 
zwei  nach  vorn  flatternden  Locken  ein  die  Schlafe  bedeckender  Haar- 
bausch ; im  Feld  r.  Fliege.  Feld  rundlich  vertieft.  — Tafel  11,24. 

51)  11  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  53. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  53,  aber  im  Feld  r.  ein  undeutliches  Beizeichen. 
Tafel  II,  25. 


Die  Silberpriigung  von  Lampsakos.  17 

mm 

55)  14  Vs.  Weiblicher  Doppelkopf  mit  frei  gewelltem,  auf  dem  Scheitel  geteilten 

Haar,  je  einer  breiten  Binde  und  gemeinsamem  Ohrschmuck. 

Bs.  A|A[M  oben,  r.,  1.  Athenakopf  wie  bei  No.  53,  dock  ohne  Halsband; 
am  Helmkessel  eine  Schlange  sich  nach  r.  baumend.  Feld  rundlich  ver- 
tieft.  — Tafel  II,  26. 

56)  14  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  55. 

Rs.  A AIM  1.,  oben,  r.  oder  A oben,  A M r.  Ebenso  wie  No.  55,  aber  mit 
Perlenhalsband  und  der  Helm  mit  Busch;  im  Feld  r.  oben  Beizeichen.  — 
Tafel  II,  27. 

57)  14  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  55.  56.’ 

Rs.  A|A M oben,  r.,  iinten.  Ebenso  wie  No.  56,  doch  ohne  Halsband;  am 
Helmkessel  a)  Vorderteil  des  Fliigelpferdes,  b)  Pentagramm;  kein  Bei- 
zeichen. — Tafel  II,  28  und  29. 

58)  14  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  55 — ^57. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  57,  aber  mit  (glattem)  Halsband  und  am  Helmkessel 
Schlange;  im  Feld  r.  unten  Epheublatt.  — Tafel  II,  30. 

59)  14  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  55 — 58,  doch  mit  Perlenhalsband;  am  Ohrschmuck  trauben- 

formiger  Anhanger. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  56,  aber  ohne  die  Schlange  am  Helmkessel  und  ohne 
Beizeichen.  — Tafel  II,  31. 

60)  14  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  55 — 58,  doch  mit  Perlenhalsband. 

Rs.  AAiM  oben  und  r.  Ebenso  wie  No.  56,  aber  im  Feld  r.  unten  Kaninchen 
nach  r.  auf  einem  langen  Halm,  an  dem  es  mit  leicht  nach  vorn  ge- 
wendetem  Kopfe  knabbert.  — Tafel  II,  32. 

61)  14  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  55—58. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  56,  aber  der  Helm  mit  dreifachem  Busch  und  ohne  die 
Schlange  am  Kessel;  im  Feld  r.  unten  Delphin  nach  r.  — Tafel  II,  33. 

62)  14  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  55 — 58. 

Rs.  A oben,  AIM  r.  Ebenso  wie  No.  56,  doch  ohne  Halsband;  im  Feld  r. 
Ahre.  — Tafel  II,  34. 

4 

Die  bier  als  Grruppe  III  beschriebenen  Silbermiinzen  mit  den  uns  von  Gruppe  II 
her  bekannten  Typen  Doppelkopf,  Rs.  Athenakopf  gliedern  sich  nach  aufieren  Merk- 
malen  in  drei  Unterabteilungen : No.  30 — 32,  No.  33 — 54  und  No.  55 — 62.  An  die 
Spitze  sind  No.  30 — 32  gestellt,  weil  sie  gleich  ihren  Vorgangern  No.  12 — 29  noch 
der  Angabe  des  Stadtnamens  entbehren.  Wahrend  bei  den  Athenakopfen  ihrer  Rs. 
die  Haarbehandlung  sich  von  dem  archaischen  Schema  befreit  hat,  ist  auf  der  Vs. 
das  gleiche  nur  bei  dem  Doppelkopf  von  No.  30  geschehen.  Dieser  wenig  gegliickte 
Versuch  bleibt  jedoch  zunachst  ohne  Nachfolge;  es  beginnt  vielmehr  mit  No.  31 
ein  bewuBtes  Archaisieren,  indem  das  Scheitel-  und  Stirnhaar  wieder  in  parallelen 
Perlreihen  dargestellt  wird,  ankniipfend  also  nicht  an  die  letzten  Emissionen  der 
vorangehenden  Gruppe,  denen  die  Scheitelung  eigentiimlich  war  (No.  17 — 29;  vgl. 
oben  S.  8),  scndern  an  die  alteren  (No.  12 — 16),  wobei  nur,  wie  seit  No.  28  iiblich, 
die  im  Nacken*herabhangenden  Locken  fortgelassen  werden.  Wir  haben  somit  hier 
dieselbe  Erscheinung  vor  uns  wie  in  Terina  und  Abdera,  wo  man  archaisierend 


18 


H.  Gaebler, 


gleiclifalls  mit  Ubergehung  der  zeitlicli  naheren  sich  weiter  zuriickliegende  Vor- 
bilder  waklte  (vgl.  Nomisma  I,  S.  17  f. ; III,  S.  7 ; IX,  S.  55  f.).  Mit  Xo.  19—29  der 
Gruppe  II  verbindet  Xo.  31.  32  auch  der  Perlkreis  auf  der  Vs.,  der  bei  Xo.  30 
augensckeinlicli  nur  infolge  des  zu  kleinen  Schrbtlings  nickt  mit  ausgepragt  ist. 
Ebenso  wird  die  bei  Xo.  28  zum  ersten  Male  auftauckende  Mittelfiirche  zur  An- 
deutung  zweier  Halse  beibekalten  und  die  darin  sick  ausspreckende  Tendenz  einer 
starkeren  Betonung  der  Zweikeit  minmekr  auck  auf  die  das  Haar  sckmiickende 
Binde  erstreckt,  die  friiker  ungetremit  als  gemeinsames  Band  beide  Kopfe  umscklang. 

Mit  der  die  zweite  Unterabteilung  unserer  Gruppe  III  eroffnenden  Emission 
Xo.  33  endet  die  Anonymitat  des  lampsakeniscken  Silbergeldes  und  es  ersckeint 
auf  seiner  Rs.  zum  ersten  Male  der  Stadtname.  Seine  Anbringung  um  den  Atkena- 
kopf  kerum  war  eine  nickt  ganz  leickte  Aufgabe,  deren  Lbsung  in  der  mannig- 
faltigsten  Weise  versuckt  wurde,  okne  dak  es  zum  Eestkalten  eines  typiscken 
Sckemas  kain.  Eine  gewisse  Entwickelung  ist  nur  insofern  wakrzunekmen,  als  man, 
mit  fiinf  Buckstaben  beginnend  (Xo.  33.  34),  sick  erst  nur  voriibergekend  (Xo.  35. 
38.  41,  b),  dann  konstant  (Xo.  47 — 52)  auf  vier  besckrankte  nnd  scklieklick  auf  drei 
zuriickging  (Xo.  53 — 62).  GroBte  Abweckselung  dagegen  zeigt  sick  in  der  Art 

ikrer  Unterbringung : meist  r.  oben,  aber  vereinzelt  auck  1.  in  der  Mitte  (Xo.  44) 
Oder  1.  unten  (Xo.  47 — 50.  56)  anfangend,  steken  sie  zuerst  in  zwei  Zeilen  ^ov6tqo- 
(priSov  (Xo.  33  und  sodann  wieder  Xo.  36.  39.  41,  a.  42.  45),  sekr  bald  auck  sckon  in 
kreisfbrmiger  Legende  (Xo.  34.  35.  37.  38.  40.  41,  b.  43.  44.  46.  51 — 62)  und  besonders 
ungesckickt  bei  Xo.  47—50  das  Y senkreckt  r.  unten.  Xamentlick  dieses  letztere 
ist  fast  nie  zu  voller  Auspragung  gelangt,  aber  auck  sonst  kaben  nur  selten  alle 
Buckstaben  zugleich  auf  dem  Sckrbtling  Platz  gefunden,  so  daB  die  Lesung  oft  die 
groBten  Schwierigkeiten  bereitet  und  nur  durck  Stempelvergleickung  gelingt. 

Die  erwaknte  Emission  Xo.  33  ist  deskalb  an  den  Anfang  der  zweiten  Unter- 
abteilung (Xo.  33 — 54)  gestellt,  well  sie  als  einzige  nock  den  Perlkreis  um  das  Bild 
der  Vs.  aufweist.  Sie  iibernimmt  auck  das  Arckaisieren  in  der  Wiedergabe  des 
Haares,  bei  der  sick  indessen  bald  gewisse  Abwandlungen  beobackten  lassen.  Auf 
Xo.  39 — 44  ist  nur  nock  das  Stirnkaar  geperlt,  der  Sckadel  aber  mit  parallelen 
Bogenlinien  bedeckt,  die  auck  auf  Xo.  46  wiederkekren,  wo  das  Stirnkaar  ganz  feklt, 
sowie  auf  Xo.  53.  54,  wo  es  die  Form  kleiner  Wiilste  angenommen  kat.  Einen  ver- 
einzelten  Versuck,  das  arckaiscke  Sckema  abzustreifen,  wie  ikn  Xo.  30  zeigte,  seken 
wir  bei  dem  Doppelkopf  von  Xo.  37,  und  etwas  ganz  Singulares  bei  dem  von 
Xo.  45,  wo  die  Binde  durck  je  eine  Akre  mit  Blatt  ersetzt  und,  um  dies  deutlick 
darstellen  zu  kbnnen,  der  Sckadel  kakl  gelassen  und  das  Haar  nur  durck  Punk- 
tierung  des  Konturs  angedeutet  ist. 

Weitere  Xeuerungen  in  der  Ausstattung  der  Vs.  ergibt  das  Ersckeinen  von 
Beizeicken  und  von  Beamtennamen.  Zu  ikrer  Unterbringung  waklte  man  den  Hals 
des  Doppelkopfes,  offenbar  aus  raumlicken  Grlinden,  um  ikre  Auspragung  moglickst 
zu  sickem,  eine  Vorsorge,  die,  wie  wir  saken,  fur  den  Stadtnamen  auf  der  Rs.  nickt 
in  gleickem  MaBe  obwaltete.  Bei  dieser  ungewoknlicken  Anbringungsart  ist  eine 
gewisse  Stufenfolge  unverkennbar.  Der  nack  r.  gewendete  Delpkin  .auf  Xo.  35  be- 
deckt nur  den  Halsabschnitt,  laBt  also  nock  ein  mekr  oder  weniger  groBes  Stiick 
des  Halses  frei,  und  dieses  zeigt  bei  vier  von  den  vorliegenden  fiinf  Vs.-Stempeln 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 


19 


die  melirfach  erwahnte  Mittelfurche,  die  sonach  auf  einem  Stempel  bereits  feblt. 
Letzteres  ist  sodann  stets  der  Fall  bei  der  links-  oder  recbtsbin  liegenden  Ahre 
(No.  36.  37),  wabrend  der  nacb  1.  gewendete  Delphin  (No.  38)  sowie  die  drei  Be- 
amtennamen  OEO,  lAO,  KPI  (No.  39 — 42)  so  bocb  bmaufgeriickt  sind,  dab  sicb  die 
Frage  nacb  der  Gestaltung  des  Halses  eriibrigte,  der  Stempelscbneider  also  die  Ent- 
scbeidung  vermied,  ob  die  bart  auf  das  Beizeicben  oder  die  Scbrift  stoBende  Mittel- 
furcbe- beizubebalten  oder  besser  fortzulassen  sei.  Als  dann  mit  der  Verweisung 
des  Beizeicbens  nacb  der  Bs.  der  Halsabscbnitt  wieder  frei  wurde,  ging  man  all- 
mablicb  davon  ab,  ibn  wie  in  alter  Zeit  (No.  12 — 29)  nnd  nocb  auf  No.  30 — 32 
geradlinig  zu  gestalten,  und  verstarkte  die  scbon  auf  No.  33  beginnende  Einziebung 
in  der  Mitte,  ftigte  aucb  gelegentlicb  (No.  44.  45.  47.  53)  die  seit  No.  39  zu  beob- 
acbtende  Andeutung  des  Brustansatzes  1.  und  r.  wieder  binzu  oder  erzielte  durcb 
ein  in  der  Mitte  nacb  oben  und  unten  sicb  verbreiterndes  Halsband  Abwecbselung 
(No.  52). 

Abnlicbe  Wandl ungen  macbt  der  Atbenakopf  der  Rs.  durcb.  Sein  Helm,  auf 
No.  33  nocb  von  strenger  Struktur  mit  steilem  Nackenstiick  und  kugelformig  ge- 
wolbtem  Kessel,  verliert  mebr  und  mebr  diese  altertilmlicbe  Gestalt,  das  Nacken- 
stilck  wird  starker  vom  Kessel  abgesetzt  und  die  Wolbung  des  letzteren  zugleicb 
flacber,  so  dab  er  ein  miitzenartiges  Ausseben  erbalt.  Auf  No.  37  verblillt  den 
Nacken  die  unter  dem  Helm  bervorkommende  Lederkappe,  die  wir  von  den  korinthi- 
schen  Stateren  kennen.  Das  Haar  fallt  anfangs  wie  bei  No.  30 — 32  in  breiter 
Lockenfiille  Nacken  und  Obr  bedeckend  berab  (No.  33 — 46),  dann  wird  eine  Strabne 
von  der  Hauptmasse  losgelost  und  bangt  einzeln  vor  dem  Obr  berunter  (No.  47—50), 
bei  No.  51  sind  es  deren  zwei  und  bei  No.  52  flattern  diese  lebbaft  bewegt  nacb 
vorn.  Mit  No.  63  setzt  abermals  ein  Wecbsel  in  der  Haartracbt  ein.  Die  beiden 
Einzelstrabnen  verscbwinden  und  an  ibre  Stelle  tritt  ein  die  Scblafe  bedeckender 
Haarbausch.  Gleicbzeitig  erbalt  der  Kopf  Obrgebange  und  Halsband. 

Wie  das  Erscbeinen  des  Stadtnamens  die  zweite  Unterabteilung  unserer  Gruppelll 
scbarf  von  der  ersten  trennt,  so  ist  fiir  die  dritte  (No.  55 — 62)  ein  markanter  Unter- 
schied  in  der  Haarbebandlung  bei  dem  Doppelkopf  der  Vs.  das  bestimmende  Kri- 
terium:  die  so  lange  beibebaltene  arcbaisierende  Wiedergabe,  an  der  No.  53.  54 
durcb  Preisgeben  der  Punktierung  des  Stirnbaares  bereits  rifttelten,  wird  eingestellt. 
Das  Abstreifen  dieser  Fessel  fiibrte  naturgemaB  dazu,  die  trennende  Mittelfurcbe 
des  Halses  nun  aucb  iiber  den  Scbadel  zu  erstrecken  und  damit  die  Betonung  der 
Zweibeit  nocb  weiter  zu  steigern.  Dieser  Tendenz,  die  nur  vor  dem  Obrscbmuck 
Halt  macbt,  entspricbt  es  aucb,  daB  bei  No.  60  das  Halsband  in  der  Mitte  unter- 
brocben  ist,  was  No.  59  nocb  vermissen  laBt. 

Der  Atbenakopf  der  Rs.  ilbernimmt  von  No.  58.  54  den  die  Scblafe  bedeckenden 
Haarbauscb,  laBt  ibn  aber  mebr  und  mebr,  zusammenscbrumpfen.  Aucb  Obrgebange 
und  Halsband,  letzteres  nicbt  obne  Ausnabmen  (No.  55.  57),  werden  beibebalten. 
Der  korintbiscbe  Helm  ist  nur  nocb  auf  No.  55,  wie  bisber,  obne  Buscb.  Mit  No.  56 
erbalt  er  einen  solcben  als  regelmaBige  Zutat,  einmal  (No.  61)  sogar  deren  drei. 
Am  Kessel  erscbeint  zumeist  ein  Emblem:  die  nacb  r.  sicb  baumende  Scblange 
(No.  55.  56.  58.  60.  62),  das  Vorderteil  des  Fliigelpferdes  (No.  57,  a),  ein  Pentagramm 
(No.  57,  b). 


20 


H.  Gaebler, 


Die  Mannigfaltigkeit  dieser  Helmzierden  verdient  Beachtung.  Schon  in  Gruppe  II 
begegneten  uns  ein  vierspeichiges  Rad  (No.  15),  die  Schlange  (No.  19.  20.  23,  a)  und 
ein  Kranz  (No.  21.  22.  23,  b.  24,  a.  27),  dem  Six,  wie  wir  sahen,  zu  Unrecht  politi- 
tische  Bedeutung  beilegte.  Er  kebrt  auch  in  Gruppe  III  wieder  (No.  43.  51),  die 
zu  ihni  aufier  den  genannten  Emblejnen  der  dritten  Unterabteilung  (Schlange,  Fliigel- 
pferd,  Pentagramm)  des  weiteren  einen  Lbwenkopf  (No.  30)  sowie  ein  Olivenblatt 
mit  Frucht  (No.  44)  gesellt. 

Der  Ohrschmuck  des  Doppelkopfes  der  Vs.,  urn  auch  hierauf  noch  einen  zu- 
sammenfassenden  Blick  zu  werfen,  laBt  in  Gruppe  III  deutlich  erkennen,  dab  man 
ihn  in  seiner  urspriinglichen  Wesenheit  nicht  mehr  verstand,  wie  dies  schon  im 
Verlauf  von  Gruppe  II  sich  zeigte  (vgl.  oben  S.  8.  9).  Das  kyprische  Oberteil  ist, 
wo  es  noch  nachklingt,  durchweg  zu  einer  Mondsichel  geworden,  die,  auf  No.  31. 
33.  34  wenigstens  an  richtiger  Stelle  angebracht,  schon  einmal  auf  No.  30  diese 
verlaBt,  dann  aber  zugleich  mit  dem  kreisformigen  ionischen  Zierrat  immer  tiefer 
hinabruckt  und  ofFenbar  als  zweiteiliges  Gebilde  am  Ohrlappchen  hiingend  gedacht 
wird  (No.  35.  38.  47 — 50.  53 — 58.  60 — 62).  Haufig  ist  nur  der  ionische  Ring  dar- 
gestellt  (No.  32.  36.  39—46.  51.  52)  und  vereinzelt  dieser  mit  einer  der  Zeitmode 
entnommenen  Zutat,  einem  traubenformigen  Anhanger,  bereichert  (No.  37.  59). 

Das  Quadratum  incusum  fehlt  auf  den  Emissionen  unserer  Gruppe  III  yon 
Anfang  an.  Statt  dessen  erscheint  das  Pragbild  der  Rs.  in  einer  leichten,  meist 
rundlichen,  seltener  (No.  32.  34  — 36.  38.  46)  quadratischen  Eintiefung,  die  der  Form 
des  Punzens  entspricht.  Bei  fehlerhaftem  Aufsetzen  desselben  oder  zu  stark em 
Hammerschlag  entsteht  gelegentlich  eine  ubermafiig  tiefe  Einsenkung  (Tafel  II,  5. 
22—24.  26),  die,  wenn  der  Punzen  quadratischen  Querschnitt  hat,  fast  den  Eindruck 
des  alten  Quadratum  incusum  erweckt,  wie  z.  B.  bei  der  mit  Tafel  II,  17  (Athen) 
stempelgleichen  Ruckseite  des  Pariser  Exemplars  von  No.  46  (Babelon,  Traite  III,  2, 
Taf.  CLXXII,  11). 

Es  ist  bereits  oben  (S.  13)  erwahnt  worden,  dab  die  Stadt  Lampsakos  nicht 
schon  nach  der  Schlacht  bei  Mykale,  wie  vielfach  angenommen  wird  ’),  in  den  atti- 
schen  Seebund  eintrat,  sondern  erst  464  vor  Chr.  unter  der  Wirkung  von  Kimon’s 
Sieg  am  Eurymedon.  Nach  Thuc.  I,  138  schenkte  Artaxerxes  sie  im  Jahre  464-) 
dem  aus  Athen  verbannten  Themistokles  und  dieser  gab  ihr  die  Freiheit  (Themist. 
epist.  20,  S.  761  Hercher),  eine  Nachricht,  die  wohl  als  Einkleidung  der  Tatsache 
aufzufassen  ist,  dab  Themistokles  sich  dort  nicht  behaupten  konnte  und  in  den 
Beitritt  der  Stadt  zum  delischen  Bund  willigte  (vgl.  Ed.  Me3^er,  Gesch.  d.  Alter th. 
Ill,  S.  524.  530).  Wie  bisher  unter  persischer  Herrschaft,  stand  Lampsakos  auch 


*)  Vgl.  Waddington,  Rev.  num.  1856,  S.  49  = Me- 
langes I (1861),  S.  3;  Kohler,  Urkunden  u.  Unter- 
suchungen  z.  Gesch.  d.  delisch-attischen  Bundes 
(1870),  S.' 114,  Anm.  1;  Busolt,  Griech.  Gesch. 
HI,  1 (1897),  S.  136;  Bahelon,  Traitd  II,  1 
(1907),  Sp.  386.  — Dagegen  z.  B.  Brandis,  Das 
Miinz-,  Mass-  u.  Gewichtswesen  in  Vorderasien 
(1866),  S.  222;  Holm,  Griech.  Gesch.  II  (1889), 
S.  139,  Anm.  15;  von  Wilamowitz,  Aristoteles 


und  Athen  I (1893),  S.  151;  R.  Weil,  Corolla 
numismatica  (l906),  S.  302,  Anm.  2. 

0 Artaxerxes  I.  kam  nach  Ed.  Meyer  (Forschungen 
zur  alten  Geschichte  II,  1899,  S.  485)  im  August 
465  zur  Rcgierung,  nach  Busolt  (Griech.  Gesch. 
Ill,  1,  1897,  S.  132)  erst  im  Friihjahr461.  Vgl. 
auch  Busolt,  a.  a.  0.  S.  135;  von  Wilamowitz, 
a.  a.  0.  S.  149;  Judeich  hei  fauly-Wissowa, 
Real-Encyclop.  II,  1,  Sp.  1312. 


Die  Silberpr-agung  von  Lampsakos. 


21 


woiterhin  augcnscheinlich  in  lioher  Bliite,  denn  sein  Bundesbeitrag  belief  sieh  auf 
12  Talente  (vgl.  Kohler,  Urkunden  u.  Untersuchiingen,  S.  166).  Tm  rriihjahr  411 
von  Athen  abgefallen,  wurde  die  Stadt  unmittelbar  darauf  durch  Strombichides 
wieder  eingenommen  (Thuc.  VIII,  62).  Das  Ende  des  peloponnesischen  Krieges 
>)rachte  ihr  dann  die  Freiheit,  die  sie  aber  durch  Konon’s  Sieg  bei  Knidos  394  vor 
Chr.  wieder  an  Athen  und  spater  durch  den  Frieden  des  Antalkidas  387  vor  Chr. 
an  Persien  verlor. 

Dieser  Gang  der  Ereignisse  gibt  zur  genaueren  Datierung  der  unsere  Gruppe  III 
bildenden  Emissionen  No.  30—62  einigen  Anhalt.  Sowohl  die  persische  wie  ^.nfangs 
die  athenische  Oberherrschaft  belieB  den  von  ihr  Abhangigen  in  der  Kegel  das  Pri- 
vileg  eigener  Silberpragung,  und  auch  die  Eroberung  von  Lampsakos  durch  Lysander 
(405  vor  Chr.)  diirfte  hier  nichts  daran  geandert  haben,  da  dieser,  wie  ausdrilcklich 
berichtet  wird^),  die  Stadt  zwar  der  Pliinderung  preisgab,  aber  nicht  der  Freiheit 
beraubte  und  ibre  Autonomic  um  400  vor  Chr.  aus  Xenoph.  anab.  VII,  8,  1 if.  her- 
vorgeht.  Dagegen  hat  Athens  kurz  vor  der  sicilischen  Expedition  einsetzendes 
Bestreben  die  Silberpragung  zu  monopolisieren^)  4n  Lampsakos  allem  Anschein  nach 
Erfolg  gehabt.  Der  Versuch  sich  der  athenischen  Herrschaft  zu  entziehen,  den  die 
Stadt  im  Jahre  411  unternahm,  beweist  ihre  Unzufriedenheit  mit  den  damaligen 
Verhaltnissen,  und  zu  der  Annahme  einer  mehrjahrigen,  aber  nicht  allzu  langen 
Unterbrechung  ihrer  Silbergeldausgabe  paBt  vortrefflich  einerseits  der  scharfe  Schnitt, 
der  die  Emissionen  No.  55 — 62  (die  dritte  Unterabteilung  der  Gruppe  III)  von  ihren 
Vorgangern  trennt  und  sowohl  in  dem  Aufgeben  der  archaisierenden  Haartracht 
des  Doppelkqpfes  wie  in  dem  Wechsel  des  Nominals  (woriiber  unten)  zum  Ausdruck 
kommt,  anderseits  der  enge  t3^pologische  Zusammenhang,  der,  wie  wir  sahen,  den 
Athenakopf  der  Rs.  von  No.  55  mit  dem  von  No.  53.  54  verbindet.  Sonach  entbehrt 
es  nicht  einer  groBen  Wahrscheinlichkeit,  den  Beginn  der  Emissionen  No.  55 — 62 
um  405  vor  Chr.  anzusetzen.  Ihr  Ende  diirften  sie  spatestens  um  387  vor  Chr. 
gefunden  haben,  zu  welcher  Zeit  nach  Ausweis  der  Goldstatere  das  Fliigelpferd- 
Vorderteil  seine  Geltung  als  lampsakenisches  Stadtwappen  wiedergewann.  Fiir  die 
mittlere  Unterabteilung  unserer  Gruppe  III,  die  Emissionen  No.  33 — 54,  wiirde  dann 
415  vor  Chr.  den  friihesten  terminus  ante  quern  bedenten.  Als  Zeitpunkt  ihres  Be- 
ginnes  kame  das  Jahr  464  in  Betracht,  in  welchem  die  Stadt  Lampsakos  aus  per- 
sischem  Besitz  voriibergehend  an  Themistokles  und  sodann  unter  athenische  Ober- 
hoheit  kam.  An  einen  solchen  politischen  Wendepunkt  laBt  sich  die  mit  No.  33 
einsetzende  bedeutsame  Neuerung,  das  Erscheinen  des  Stadtnamens,  mit  einiger 
Wahrscheinlichkeit  ankniipfen,  und  eine  StUtze  findet  diese  Kombination,  wie  wir 
sehen  werden,  in  dem  zu  beobachtenden  Wahrungs wechsel.  Fiir  die  erste  Unter- 
abteilung, No.  30—32,  bliebe  somit  die  Zeit  ca.  470 — 464  iibrig.  Stilistisch  steht 
diesem  Ansatz  nichts  entgegen.  Der  starke  Fortschritt,  der  sich  hier  im  Vergleich 
zu  No.  29  der  vorangehenden  Gruppe  II  bekundet,  entspricht  durchaus  dem  groBen 
Aufschwung,  den  zu  jener  Zeit  die  griechische  Kunst  allenthalben  erlebte,  und 
findet  seine  Parallele  z.  B,  in  den  der  gleichen  Epoche  entstammenden  Kyzikenern 


0 Xenoph.  Ilellen.  II,  1,  19;  Diod.  XIII,  104,  8.  I ersten  attischen  Seebund  (Zeitschrift  f.  Num. 

0 Vgl.  R.  Weil,  Das  Miinzinonopol  Athens  im  I XXV,  1906,.S.  52  ff.),  S.  56.  60. 


4 


22 


H.  Gaebler 


Nomisma  VII,  Taf.  IV,  22.  23.  25  (vgl.  von  Fritze,  daselbst  S.  30  fF.),  wie  ebenso 
augenfallig  die  Emissionen  No.  33  — 54:  mit  den  dort  Taf.  IV,  16—20.  26—29  abge- 
bildeten,  der  Zeit  ca.  460—410  vor  Chr.  zugeteilten  Stucken  zusammenstimmen  und 
fiir  die  Emissionen  No.  55—62  auf  ibre  Stilverwandtschaft  mit  der  ca.  405  vor  Chr. 
beginnenden  kyzikeniscben  Girofisilberreibe  (Nomisma  IX,  Taf.  V,  26  ff. ; vgl.  von 
Fritze,  daselbst  S.  44)  hinzuweisen  ist. 

Die  drei  Unika  No.  30.  31.  32  wiegen  4,08  (mit  zu  klein  geratenem  Scbrbtling, 
s.  oben  S.  18),  0,80  nnd  0,52  g,  sind  also  augensckeinlick  Dracbme,  Obol  und  Trite- 
morion  persischen  FuBes  in  noch  weiter  fortgeschrittener  Abknappung  (s.  oben  S.  14). 
Die  drei  Exemplare  von  No.  38  wiegen  2,06,  2,04,  1,96  g,  die  fiinf  von  No.  34:  1,55, 
1,51,  1,48,  1,44,  1,40  g.  Erstere  sind  unmbglich  noch  als  persische  Halbdrachmen 
denkbar,  sondern  mit  groBter  Wahrscheinlichkeit  als  solche  attischer  Wahrung  (normal 
ca.  2,18  g)  anzusprechen.  Unerklarbar  bleibt  dagegen  vorlaufig  das  kleinere  Nominal, 
das  seinem  1,47  g betragenden  Durchschuittsgewicht  nach  weder  ein  persisches  Tri- 
hemiobolion  (normal  ca.  1,40  g)  noch  ein  attisches  Diobolon  (normal  ca.  1,45  g)  sein 
kann.  Es  ist  augenscheinlich  identisch  mit  dem  gleichschweren  Silberstdck  in 
Astakos  und  Assos,  das  nach  Gardner  (History  of  anc.  coinage,  S.  266 f.)  lokalem 
Bedlirfnis  zu  entsprechen  bestimmt  war.  Beide  Nominate  aber  sind  in  Lampsakos 
nur  ganz  ephemere  Erscheinungen,  schon  mit  No.  35  kehrt  die  Stadt  zu  ihrem 
alten,  bis  zum  „Ionischen  Aufstand“  in  Geltung  gewesenen  MiinzfuB  zuriick,  dem 
auch  die  um  450  vor  Chr.  wieder  aufgenommene  Elektronpragung  folgt  ^).  Es  kommt 
znnachst  der  normal  ca.  1,28  g schwere  Obol  zur  Ausgabe  (No.  35 — 54),  den  spater 
(No.  55 — 62)  das  normal  ca.  2,57  g wiegende  Diobolon^)  ablest,  also  die  gleichen 
beiden  Werte,  mit  denen  einst  die  lampsakenische  Silberpragung  eroffnet  wurde 
(Gruppe  I).  Wie  der  mit  No.  55  einsetzende  Nominalwechsel  hbchstwahr.scheinlich 
mit  ibrer  Wiederaufnahme  um  405  vor  Chr.  zusammenfallt  (s.  oben  S.  21),  so  stiitzt 
der  nach  den  ephemeren  Emissionen  No.  33.  34  eintretende  Wahrungswechsel  die 
Vermutung,  daB  hier  die  Ereignisse  des  Jahres  464  vor  Chr.  ihre  Spuren  hinter- 
lassen  haben,  daB  also  No.  83.  34  wiihrend  der  kurzen  Herrschaft  des  Themistokles  ^), 
No.  35  tf.  nach  dem  Beitritt  der  Stadt  zum  delisch-attischen  Bunde  gepragt  sind. 
ITnd  wenn  wir  endlich  sehen,  wie  dann  mit  den  um  387  vor  Chr.  beginnenden 
Goldstateren  ein  abermaliger  Wahrungswechsel  den  persischen  MiinzfuB  in  Lam- 
psakos erneut  zur  Herrschaft  bringt,  so  bestatigt  dies  die  oben  aus  typologischen 
Gfiinden  hergeleitete  Annahme,  daB  Gruppe  III  spatestens  um  diese  Zeit  ihr  Ende 
gefunden  hat. 


')  Vgl.  A.  Baldwin,  The  electium  coinage  of  Lam- 
psakos, S.  11  und  dazu  H.  Gaebler,  Numismat. 
Literatur-Blatt  1922,  Nr.  223/224,  S.  1852. 
Gardner,  der  diese  Stiicke  mit  Babelon  (Traite 
II,  2,  Sp.  1379  f.)  irrig  der  zweiten  Halfte  des 
IV.  Jabrbunderts  vor  Chr.  zutcilt,  siebt  in  ibnen 
persische  Halbdrachmen  (History  of  anc.  coi- 
nage, S.  312),  wahrend  Babelon  sie  als  „Tetro- 
bolen"  (ohne  Angabe  der  Wahrung)  bezeichnet. 

^)  Sic  stand  noch  lange  in  gutem  Andenken,  wie 
daraus  hervorgeht,  daB  ihm  in  Lampsakos  spa- 


ter ein  heroisches  Fest  gefeiert  wurde  und  seine 
Nachkommen  dort  Ehrenrechte  genossen  (vgl. 
von  Wilamowitz,  Aristoteles  u.  Atben  I,  S.  151  f.; 
R.  Weil,  Corolla  numism.,  S.  302,  Anm.  2).  The- 
mistokles  hatte  der  Stadt,  die  er  dock  nicht 
zinspflichtig  machen  konnte,  groBmiitig  den 
Tribut  erlassen  und  offenbar  ihr  Miinzprivileg 
nicht  angetastet,  wenn  auch  vielleicht  die  Wahl 
des  attischen  MiinzfuBes  fiir  No.  33  (s.  oben) 
direkt  oder  indirekt  auf  seinen  EinBuB  zuriick- 
gehen  mag. 


Die  Silberpriigung  von  Lampsakos. 


23 


Grruppe  IV. 

mm 

63)  14  Vs.  Kopf  der  Athena  nach  r.  mit  hinten  herabhangendem  und  wieder  hoch- 

genommenen  Haar,  attischem  Helm  und  Halsband;  der  Helmbusch  au£ 
geperltem  Biigel,  am  Kessel  eine  groBe  Ranke  und  iiber  dem  Stirn- 
schirm  zwei  bsenahnliche  Verzierungen. 

Rs.  Vorderteil  eines  gefliigeltenPferdes  nach  r..  der  r,  Pliigel  erhoben, 
der  1.  unnatiirlich  gesenkt  und  dadurch  hinter  dem  Abschnitt  zum  Vor- 
schein  kommend.  Feld  leicht  vertieft.  — Tafel  II,  35. 

64)  11  Vs.  Kopf  des  Apollon  mit  kurzem  Haar  und  Lorbeerkranz  nach  r. 

Rs.  A!A|M  1.,  oben,  r.  Vorderteil  des  Fliigelpf erdes  wie  bei  Ko.  63;  im 
Feld  unten  wechselndes  Beizeichen  (Kaninchen,  Delphin,  Schnecke,  Biene, 
Weintraube,  Stern).  Feld  leicht  vertieft.  — Tafel. II,  36. 

65)  7 Vs.  Kopf  des  Apollon  mit  langem,  flatternden  Haar  fast  von  vorn,  leicht 

rechtshin,  um  den  Hals  die  Chlamys  angedeutet. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  Ko.  63.  — Tafel  II,  39  (Unikum). 

66)  12  Vs.  Kopf  des  Apollon  mit  Lorbeerkranz  nach  r.,  das  Haar  im  Nacken  auf- 

genommen  und  darunter  lang  herabfallend. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  64;  im  Feld  unten  Ahre  (Spitze  r.).  Feld  leicht  ver- 
tieft. — Tafel  II,  37. 

67)  16  Vs.  Kopf  der  Athena  mit  langem  Haar  und  zweibuschigem  korinthischen 

Helm  nach  r. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  66.  — Tafel  II,  38. 

68)  14  Vs.  Kopf  des  Apollon  wie  bei  No.  66. 

Rs.  AAiM  1.  und  r.  oder  A AIM  1.,  oben,  r.  Vorderteil  des  Fliigelpferdes 
wie  bei  No.  63;  im  Feld  unten  Monogramm.  Feld  leicht  vertieft.  — 
Tafel  II,  40. 

69)  13  Vs.  Kopf  des  Apollon  wie  bei  No.  66. 

Rs.  AIAIM  1.,  oben,  r.  Ebenso  wie  No.  68,  doch  im  Feld  unten  Monogramm 
und  Y — Tafel  II,  41  (Unikum). 

Die  hier  als  Gruppe  IV  vereinigten  Emissionen  No.  63 — 69  sind  die  letzten 
Ausiaufer  der  lampsakenischen  Kleinsilberpragung.  Sie  bilden  nicht  mehr  eine  ge- 
schlossene  Serie  mit  gleichbleibender  Typik  und  stetig  fortschreitender  Stilentwicke- 
lung  wie  die  Gruppen  II  und  III,  sondern  erweisen  sich  als  unzusammenhangende 
kleine  Einzelreihen  -aus  getrennten  Zeiten.  Gemeinsam  ist  ihnen  das  Wieder- 
erscheinen  des  Fliigelpferdes,  das  in  seiner  Geltung  als  Stadtwappen  so  lange  durch 
den  Doppelkopf  verdrangt  war.  Es  erhalt  aber  jetzt  gleichwie  bei  den  Goldstateren 
seinen  Platz  auf  der  Rs.  und  iiberlaBt,  einem  auch  sonst  zu  beobachtenden  Brauche 
folgend,  die  Vs.  Gbtterkopfen.  Als  solche  finden  wir  Athena,  erst  sporadisch  mit 
attischem  (No.  63),  dann  wie  standig  auf  der  Rs.  von  Gruppe  II  und  III  mit  korin- 
thischem  Helm  (No.  67),  und  als  Neuerscheimrng  Apollon  (No.  64 — 66.  68.  69).  Die 
Aufschrift  der  Rs.,  die  bei  No.  63.  65  auffallenderweise  fehlt,  gibt  bei  No.  64. 
66 — 69  den  Stadtnamen  in  der  seit  No.  53  iiblichen  Form  AAM.  Ob  bei  No.  69  das 
Y im  Feld  unten  zu  diesem  zu  ziehen  ist  oder  selbstandige  Bedeutung  hat,  bleibt 
zweifelhaft. 


24 


H.  Gaebler 


Ein  Versuch,  fiir  die  Datierung  von  No.  63 — 69  Anhaltspunkte  zn  gewinnen, 
wird  zweckmafiig  von  der  Betracktung  des  Fliigelpferd-Vorderteiles  auszugehen 
kaben,  das  sick  niit  dem  der  Groldstatere  vergleicken  lakt.  Von  den  -letzteren  kat 
A.  Baldwin  (Zeitsckr.  f.  Num.  XXXII,  1920,  S.  3,  Anm.  2)  diejenigen  mit  Beckt  an 
die  Spitze  gestellt,  deren  (nack  1.  gewendetes)  Eliigelpferd  die  relativ  grofite  Stil- 
verwandtsckaft  mit  dem  der  jungsten  Elektronstatere  (z.  B.  Brit.  Cat.  Mysia,  Taf. 
XVIII,  8)  zeigt  (a.  a.  0.  Taf.  I,  8).  Xack  einigen  Ubergangsstufen  (a.  a.  0.  Taf.  I,  9. 10), 
bei  denen  die  Form  der  Fliigel  schon  straffer  ist,  aber  immer  nock  mekr  oder 
weniger  naturalistisck  anmutet,  beginnt  mit  Taf.  I,  11 — 14  eine  zunekmende  Stili- 
sierung,  die  nickt  mekr  die  einzelne  Sckwungfeder  als  solcke  wirken  laBt,  sondern 
den  wie  aus  Metall  getriebenen  FlUgel  in  groBeren  sckematischen  Teilungen  wieder- 
gibt.  Dazn  kommt  bei  Taf.  I,  12 — 14  nock  das  eigen tiimliche  „Leiterornament“ 
und  die  Sckraffierung  der  Federpartien.  Auf  den  mit  Taf.  I,  14  erreickten  Hbke- 
punkt  folgt  dann  mit  Taf.  I,  1.5 — 17  der  rasck  zunekmende  Verfall. 

Das  Flugelpferd  unserer  Emission  No.  63,  deren  zwei  bekannte  Exemplare  dem 
gleicken  Es.-Stempel  entstammen,  findet  nun  seine  stilistiscken  Analogien  etwa  in 
der  Mitte  der  um  387  vor  Ckr.  beginnenden  und  um  330  endenden  ’)  Groldstaterreihe 
(vgl.  a.  a.  0.  Taf.  I,  11 — 14),  dlirfte  also  in  der  Zeit  von  ca.  365—355  vor  Ckr.  ent- 
standen  sein.  Die  Eicktigkeit  dieses  Ansatzes  bestatigt  ein  vergleichender  Blick 
auf  die  (typengleicken)  Silbermiinzen  des  persiscken  Satrapen  Orontas,  die  als  Zeugen 
seiner  wiederkolten  Aufstande  gegen  den  GrroBkbnig  (Artaxerxes  II.  und  Artaxer- 
xes  III.)  friikestens  im  Jahre  362  vor  Ckr.  ikren  Anfang  nekmen.  Die  stilistiscke 
IJbereinstimmung  des  Atkenakopfes  auf  dem  Tafel  II,  35  abgebildeten  Pariser  Exem- 
plar von  No.  63  z.  B.  und  dem  Londoner  Orontas-Stiick  Brit.  Cat.  Ionia,  Taf.  XXXI,  8 
ist  so  groB,  daB  beide  mit  Sickerkeit  sogar  als  Arbeiten  eines  und  desselben  Stempel- 
sckneiders  anzusprecken  sind.  Das  vorziiglick  erkaltene  Orontas-Stiick  Kat.  Hirsck 
XII  (1904),  Taf.  VII,  236  ermbglickt  es  auck,  eine  auf  beiden  Exemplaren  von  No.  63 
nickt  ganz  deutlicke  Einzelkeit  festzustellen,  daB  niimlick  der  Helm  der  Atkena 
mit  dem  „senkreckten  und  wie  ein  Diadem  vorgelegten“,  iiber  der  Scklafe  voluten- 
artig  endenden  Stirnsckinn  ausgestattet  ist,  der  ikn  als  attisck  ckarakterisiert'^). 
Von  den  atheniscken  Miinzen  entleknt  ist  allem  Ansckein  nack  sowokl  die  groBe 
Eanke  auf  der  unteren  Kesselkalfte  wie  die  den  Olivenblattern  entspreckenden 
beiden  Vex’zierungen  iiber  dem  Stirnsckinn,  die  auf  unserer  No.  63  wie  Osen  aus- 
seken  ^),  wakrend  der  (kier  nur  zweiteilige)  Bliitenkelck  der  Eanke  einem  Scklangen- 
kopf  mit  weit  geoifnetem  Maule  aknelt. 

Von  dem  Fliigelpferd  auf  No.  63  untersckeidet  sick  das  der  Emissionen  No.  64—69 
dadurck,  daB  der  1.  Fliigel  nickt  sckon  unterkalb- des  Leibes  nahe  dem  Vorderbein 
sicktbar  wird,  sondern  erst  kinter  dem  Abscknitt  des  wesentlick  verliingerten  Eumpf- 
stiickes  zum  Vorsckein  kommt.  Mit  No.  66  tritt  dabei  die  weitere  Anderung  ein, 
daB  cr  statt  seiner  sick  nack  vorn  umbiegenden  Spitze  eine  sick  fackerartig  ver- 
breiternde  Form  erhalt,  die  beweist,  daB  er  miBverstandlich  nickt  mekr  als  Fliigel, 


')  Vgl.  Agnes  Baldwin,  Zeitsclir.  f.  Niim.  XXXII 
(1!)20),  S.  11  IF. 

Vgl.  B.  Sclirbdcr,  Jahrb.  des  arch.  Inst.  XXVII 
(1U12),  b.  1524. 


0 Vgl.  die  entstellende  Wiedergabe  dieser  Oliven- 
bliltter  auf  fremden  Naebpragungen  atlieniscber 
Miinzen,  z.  B.  Brit.  Cat  Attica,  Megaris,  Aegina, 
Taf.  VII. 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 


25 


sondern  als  Schwanz  aufgefaBt  wurde  (vgl.  oben  S.  2).  Ein  stilistischer  Zusammen- 
hang  zwischen  No.  63  und  64  ist  aucb  sonst  nicbt  vorhanden.  Nur  so  viel  lafit 
sich  erkennen,  daB  die  letztere  und  ebenso  No.  65  nicbt  allzu  lange  nach  No.  63 
entstanden  sind,  aller  Wabrscheinlichkeit  nach  also  noch  dem  zweiten  Drittel  des 
IV.  Jahrhunderts  vor  Chr.  angeboren. 

Die  fiinf  zur  Zeit  vorliegenden  Exemplare  der  etwas  spateren  Emission  No.  66 
sind  iiberpragt,  was  bei  vieren  nur  mehr  oder  weniger  deutlicbe  Spuren  binterlassen 
hat,  wahrend  bei  dem  Tafel  II,  37  abgebildeten  fiinften  auf  der  Vs.  das  untere 
Profil  eines  Doppelkopfes,  auf  der  Rs.  am  Rande  1.  ein  M mit  den  EuBpunkten 
nach  innen  als  Reste  des  alteren  Greprages  sicbtbar  sind.  Sie  geniigen  zu  der  Fest- 
stellung,  daB  es  sich  um  einen  Obol  (wie  No.  35 — 54)  der  vorangehenden  Grrappe  III 
handelt.  Auch  fiir  die  Emission.  No.  67  sind  in  der  Hauptsache,  vielleicht  aus- 
schlieBlich,  altere  Geprage  benutzt  worden.  Von  den  14  vorliegenden  Exemplaren 
lassen  II  dies  Verfahren  mit  Sicherheit  erkennen,  und  deren  zwei  (Berlin:  2,39  g 
und  Newell:  2,27  g)  zeigen  ganz  deutlich  auf  der  Vs.  Teile  eines  Doppelkopfes  im 
Stile  von  No.  55 — 62,  auf  der  Rs.  die  vordere  bzw.  die  hintei’e  Halfte  des  nach  r. 
gewandten  Kopfes  der  Athena.  Sonach  darf  es  als  sehr  wahrscheinlich  bezeichnet 
werden,  daB  die  Emissionen  No.  66  und  67  eine  Umpragung  der  alteren  Obole  und 
Diobolen  bezweckten.  Einen  engen  zeitlichen  Zusammenhang  dieser  beiden  MaB- 
nahmen  anzunehmen,  wozu  man  a priori  geneigt  sein  mochte,  verbietet  der  groBe 
stilistische  Abstand  von  No.  67,  der  diese  Emission  friihestens  um  300  vor  Chr.  an- 
zusetzen  zwingt.  DaB  auch  sie  ebenso  wie  No.  66  eine  Ahre  als  Beizeichen  auf- 
weist,  steht  dem  nicht  entgegen,  denn  selbst  wenn  diese,  was  fraglich  ist,  ein 
Personenwappen  bedeuten  sollte,  bleibt  die  Moglichkeit  zweier  verschiedener  Amts- 
perioden  eines  und  desselben  Mannes  oder  zweier  Angehoriger  der  gleichen  Eamilie 
(z.  B.  Vater  und  Sohn). 

DaB  aber  die  Ahre  bier  andere  Bedeutung  hat,  wird  wahrscheinlich  durch  ihre 
Wiederkehr  unter  dem  Flugelpferd-Vorderteil  gewisser  Kupfermunzen  von  Adra- 
mytion  und  lolla  (von  Fritze,  Die  ant.  Mzn.  Mysiens  I,  1,  Taf.  I,  1 — 3 und  Taf.  X, 
12 — 18.  21).  Auch  die  betr.  Pragungen  von  lolla,  die  sich  von  der  Mitte  bis  zum 
Ende  des  IV.  Jahrhunderts  erstrecken  (von  Fritze,  a.  a.  0.  S.  210  f.),  erweisen  den 
Gebrauch  dieses  Beizeichens  fiir  mehrere  Dezennien.  Man  konnte  geneigt  sein,  es 
als  zum  Typus  gehorig  anzusehen  in  dem  Sinne,  daB  diese  Verbindung  von  Fliigel- 
pferd  und  Ahre  das  Bestehen  einer  Liga  zwischen  den  Stadten  Adramytion  und 
lolla  bekunde.  An  eine.  solche,  literarisch  freilich  nicht  bezeugte  Liga  bat  auf 
Grund  des  Fliigelpferdes  allein  bereits  Six  (bei  Imhoof-Blumer,  Monn.  gr.,  S.  245, 
Anm.  27)  gedacht  und  ihr  auch  Lampsakos  und  Thebe  zugezahlt.  Da  aber  auf  den 
Stiicken  von  Thebe  die  Ahre  fehlt,  steht  fiir  diese  letztere  Stadt  die  Six’sche  Ver- 
mutung  auf  sehr  schwachen  FiiBen,  und  eine  Modifikation  ware  auch  insofern  notig, 
als  stilistische  Griinde  zu  der  Annahme  zwingen,  daB  die  Liga  um  350  vor  Chr. 
zwischen  lolla  und  Adramytion  begriindet  und  spater,  nach  dem  Ausscheiden  von 
Adramytion,  zwischen  lolla  und  Lampsakos  bis  zum  Ende  des  IV.  Jahrhunderts 
fortgesetzt  worden  sei.  Durch  diese  Einschrankung  gewinnt  der  Liga-Gedanke 
nicht  gerade  an  Wabrscheinlichkeit  und  es  fragt  sich,  ob  nicht  statt  seiner  die 
Erkliirung  vorznziehen  sei,  daB  die  Ahre  vielmehr  die  Fabrikmarke  einer  bestimmten 


26 


H.  Gaebler 


Stempelschneidergesellschaft  darstelle,  die  mit  wecliseindeii  Mitgliedern  jahrelang 
bestand  und  desgleichen  anch  die  mit  der  Abre  signierten  Emissionen  Zeuskopf 
nach  vorn,  Es.  Adler  (Die  ant.  Mzn.  Mysiens  I,  1,  No.  5.  5 a,  Taf.  I,  6)  fur  Adramy- 
tion  lieferte. 

No.  68  bringt  eine  abermalige  sprungkafte  V erscbleckterung  des  Stils.  Sie 
zeigt  sick  besonders  in  der  grofien  Nachlassigkeit  der  Eelief behandlung : wakrend 
der  Hinterkopf  nock  leidlick  plastisck  gearbeitet  ist,  erhebt  sick  die  Profillinie  in 
fliicktigster  Zeicknung  liur  wenig  vom  Grrunde,  und  ebenso  sckleckt  ist  das  Fliigel- 
pferd  der  Es.  modelliert,  auch  die  Wiedergabe  der  Elugel  okne  alle  Sorgfalt,  dazu 
das  Monograinm  plump  und  okne  Verstandnis  fiir  gesckickte  Eaumb enutzung  an- 
gebracht.  Dies  alles  Berecktigt,  mit  der  Datierung  von  No.  68  und  der  nock  rokeren 
No.  69  bis  ins  letzte  Drittel  des  II.  Jakrkunderts  vor  Ckr.  und  vielleickt  nock  tiefer 
kinabzugeken. 

Das  IV.  Jakrkundert  vor  Ckr.  ist  politisck  fiir  Lampsakos  sekr  bewegt,  liegt 
dock  die  Stadt  auf  dem  Hauptkriegssckauplatz,  auf  dem  sick  auker  dem  Streit  um  die 
Vormackts tellung  zwiscken  Atken  und  Sparta  auck  die  durck  die  persiscken  Satrapen 
veranlafiten  Wirren  abspielen.  So  kommt  es,  dak  Lampsakos  bald  in  atkeniscke, 
bald  in  persiscke  Gewalt  gerat  und  vorlibergehend  auch  ekrgeizige  Parteihaupter 
oder  Soldnerfiihrer,  wie  des  Ariobarzanes  Giinstling  Pkiliskos  (ermordet  um  362 
vor  Ckr.)  und  spater  ein  sonst  unbekannter  Astyanax,  sick  der  Stadt  bemachtigen^). 
Seit  ca.  340  vor  Ckr.  dem  Ekodier  Memnon  unterstellt  ^),  ergab  sie  sick,  als  Alexander 
der  Groke  im  Jakre  334  iiber  den  Hellespont  setzte,  durck  eine  Gesandtsckaft  dem 
Makedonenkonige  und  wurde  von  ikm  fiir  frei  erklart  (Polyaen.  IV,  3,  15 ; Pans. 
VI,  18,  3 f.).  Autonom  sehen  wir  sie  auch  um  306  vor  Ckr.  als  Mitglied  des  iliscken 
Stadtebundes  (Dittenberger,  Sylloge  ® I,  No.  330).  Auf  seiten  des  Antigonos  stekend, 
ging  sie  sogleick  zu  Lysimackos  iiber,  als  dieser  im  Eriikjahr  302  den  Krieg  gegen 
Antigonos  eroffnete,  wurde  aber  kurz  darauf  von  des  letzteren  Sokn  Demetrios 
zuriickgewonnen  (Diod.  XX,  107,  2 und  111,  3).  Spater  gekbrte  sie  zum  Eeiche 
Antiockos’  I.,  wie  aus  den  iliscken  Insckriften  Sylloge  ^ No.  156  und  158  = Or.  Gr. 
inscr.  219  und  221  von  Niese  (Gesch.  d.  grieck.  u.  maked.  Staaten  II,  S.  85)  wokl 
mit  Eeckt  gescklossen  wird.  Abzuleknen  aber  oder  mindestens  stark  einzusckranken 
ist  es,  wenn  er  als  Beweis  dafiir,  dak  auck  Antiockos  II.  die  Herrsckaft  iiber  die 
hellespontiscken  Stadte  bekauptete,  dessen  angeblick  in  Kyzikos,  Lampsakos  und 
Abydos  gepragte  Tetradrackmen  anfiihrt  (a.  a.  0.  S.  135  nebst  Anm.  7).  Denn  ganz 
abgesehen  davon,  dak  diese  Stiicke  vielmehr  von  Antiockos  Hierax  herriikren,  lakt 
sick  die  auch  von  Macdonald  (Journ.  of  hell.  stud.  XXIII,  1903,  S.  116)  libernom- 
mene  Deutung  der  auf  iknen  angebrackten  Jleizeicken  (Eackel,  Fliigelpf erd -V order- 
teil,  Adler)  als  Stadtewappen  in  dieser  Weise  unmoglich  aufr eckterkalten . Dak  die 
Fackel  hier  mit  Kyzikos  nickts  zu  tun  haben  kann,  betont  bereits  von  Fritz e (No- 
misma  IX,  S.  50  nebst  Anm.  2),  und  das  Fliigelpferd  -V orderteil  mit  Lampsakos  in 
V erbindung  zu  bringen  verbietet  dessen  vollig  abweickende  Form,  die  entgegen 


')  liber  den  privaten  Charakter  der  Miinzindustrie 
vgl.  Zeitscbr.  f.  Num.  XXIV  (1904),  S.  288  ff- 
und  Nomisma  I (1907),  S.  27. 

^)  Demostli.  XXIII,  141  f.;  Aen.  tact.  31,  33.  Vgl. 


Judeich,  Kleinasiatische  Studien  (1892),  S.  206, 
Anm.  2 ; Ed.  Meyer,  Gescbichte  d.  Altertbums 
V (1902),  S.  487  f. 

®)  Vgl.  Judeich,  a.  a.  0.  S.  301,  Anm. 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 


27 


dem  in  Lampsakos  strong  festgehaltenen  Schema  beide  Fliigel  erhoben  zeigti). 
Da  ferner  die  Fackel  stets  mit  einem  der  beiden  anderen  Beizeichen  (Fliigelpferd 
Oder  Adler)  zusammen  erscheint  ®),  konnen  unmoglich  alle  drei  Symbole  Prageorts- 
bezeichnungen  sein,  sondern  entweder  nur  die  Fackel  oder,  was  wahrscheinlicher, 
nur  das  auch  allein  vorkommende  Fliigelpferd  und  der  Adler,  wobei  jedoch  fiir 
ersteres  von  Lampsakos  abznsehen  ist.  So  steht  der  Annahme  nicbts  entgegen,  dab 
die  Stadt  unter  Antiochos  II.  und,  von  Attalos  unterstiitzt,  auch  gegen  Antiochos 
Hierax  ihre  Freiheit  behauptete  (vgl.  Niese,  Gesch,  d.  griech.  u.  maked.  Staaien  II, 
S.  158.  391). 

Fiir  die  genauere  Datierung  der  Emissionen  No.  63 — 67  ist  aus  diesem  histo- 
rischen  IJberblick  mancherlei  zu  gewinnen.  Dab  der  Stadt  Lampsakos  weder  von 
Athen,  mit  dem  wir  sie  zur  Zeit  des  zweiten  attischen  Seebundes  in  Freundschaft 
sehen  (vgl.  Judeich,  Kleinas.  Studien,  S.  278.  280),  noch  von  Persien  das  Miinzrecht 
geschmalert  wurde,  beweist  die  stattliche,  von  holier  wirtschaftlicher  Bliite  zeugende 
Goldstaterreihe,  die  den  Zeitranm  von  ca.  387 — 330  vor  Chr.  ausfiillt.  Wahrend 
desselben  hat  die  Silberpragung  nur  in  sehr  geringem  Umfange  und  mit  Unter- 
brechungen  fortgedauert.  Es  gehoren  hierher  die  um  362  zu  datierende  Emission 
No.  63  (zwei  Exemplare  bekannt)  sowie  die  etwas  reichlichere  No.  64  und  das  Unikum 
No.  65.  Der  nach  vorn  gewendete  Apollonkopf  auf  der  Vs.  dieses  letzteren  kopiert 
den  von  Maussollos  (377 — 353  vor  Chr.)  gewahlten  Typus  und  steht  stilistisch  mit 
den  Gepragen  des  Pixodaros  (340 — 334)  auf  gleicher  Stufe  (vgl.  z.  B.  Brit.  Cat.  Caria, 
Taf.  XXVIII,  14.  15).  Es  drangt  sich  die  Vermutung  auf,  dab  dieses  des  Stadt- 
namens  entbehrende  Miinzchen  ein  Geprage  des  Hyparchen  Memnon  ist,  mit  dem  er 
dem  Beispiel  des  karischen  Satrapen  folgt.  Die  Bescheidenheit  dieser  Nachahmung 
wiirde  sich  erklaren  aus  den  Finanznoten,  die  Memnon  driickten  (Pseudo-Aristot. 
oeconom.  II,  29,  S.  31  Susemihl)  und  ihn  zwangen,  sich  mit  der  Halfte  des  kleinsten 
von  Pixodaros  ausgegebenen  Silbernominals  (Vierteldrachme)  zu  begniigen.  IJnser 
Miinzchen  wiegt  namlich  0,34  g,  ist  also  eine  etwas  knappe  Achteldrachme  (Trite- 
morion)  rhodischer  Wahrung  und  gewichtsgleich  mit  dem  von  Pixodaros  gepragten 
^’4 -Stater  in  Gold  (Brit.  Cat.  Caria,  S.  184,  4). 

Vielleicht  darf  man  aus  dem  ebenso  befremdlichen  Fehlen  des  Stadtnamens  auf 
No.  63  den  Schlub  ziehen,  dab  auch  diese  Emission  unter  einem  ephemeren  Macht- 
haber  ent,standen  ist.  Als  solcher  kame  der  oben  erwahnte  Philiskos  in  Betracht, 
was  zeitlich  aufs  beste  stimmen  wiirde.  Und  eine  weitere  Analogie  bestande  darin, 
dab  wie  Memnon  Vs. -Typus  und  Miinzfub  von  Pixodaros,  so  Philiskos  beides  von 
Orontas  entlehnte  (s.  oben  S.  24).  Die  zwei  vorliegenden  Exemplare  von  No.  63 
wiegen  3,18  und  3,09  g,  das  Pariser  Orontas- Stiick,  mit  dem  augenscheinlich  diese 


*)  Vgl.  z.  B.  Brit.  Cat.  Seleucid  kings  of  Syria, 
Taf.  V,  1 = Journ.  of  hell.  stud.  XXIII  (1903), 
Taf.  II,  11. 

0 Fackel  und  Fliigelpferd-Vorderteil:  auBer 
dem  in  Anm.  1 zitierten  Londoner  Stiick  auch 
Babelon,  Hois  de  Syrie,  S.  26  f.,  No.  197  und 
Cat.  Bunbury  II  (1896),  No.  448  sowie  mit  an- 
derem  Monogramm  ein  Exemplar  in  Berlin.  — 


Fackel  und  Adler:  Six,  Num.  chron.  1898, 
S.  236,  No.  II,  1.  2.  — Als  neu  ist  jetzt  noch 
hinzuzufiigen  die  Kombination  Fackel  und  Lb- 
wenkopf:  Auktionskat.  Egger  XXXIX  (1912), 
Taf.  XI,  337. 

®)  a)  im  Feld  1.  uber  dem  r.  Bein  des  Apollon : 
Berlin;  — b)  im  Abschnitt:  Berlin  und  Cat. 
Bunbury  II  (1896),  No.  550. 


28 


H.  Gaebler, 


Pragung  eroffnet  wurde,  8,13  g ').  Gardner  (History  of  anc.  coinage,  S.  Slfi)  sieht 
in  letzterem  ein  persisches  Tetrobolon  (normal  ca.  3,73  g),  was  nicht  selir  wahr- 
scheinlich  ist.  £her  diirfte  es  sich  hier  um  das  gleiclie  Nominal  („cliiisclie“  Dracbme) 
handeln,  das  bis  ca.  363  und  vielleicht  nocli  langer^)  in  K3^zikos  ausgegeben  wurde 
and  dort  durchschnittlich  3,11  g wiegt.  Trifft  diese  Annahme  das  Ricbtige,  dann 
ware  Lampsakos  ein  weiterer  Beleg  fiir  die  groBe  Verbreitung  des  „ckiisclien“ 
Munzgewichts,  mit  der  sich  § 1 von  Gardner’s  Kapitel  XV  beschaftigt. 

Die  zwischen  den  vermutlichen  Herrscherpragungen  No.  63  und  65  zur  Aus- 
gabe  gelangte  Emission  No.  64  unterscheidet  sich  von  ihnen  markant  durch  die 
Wiederkehr  des  Stadtnamens  und  das  Eesthalten  an  der  alien  lampsakenischcn 
AVahrung.  Das  aus  den  20  besten  der  vorliegenden  27  Exemplare  sich  ergebende 
Durchschnittsgewicht  von  1,18  g laBt  No.  64  mit  Sicherheit  als  Fortsetzung  der 
Obole  No.  35 — 54  erkennen.  Der  als  Vs.-Bild  gewahlte  Apollonkopf  mit  kurzem 
Haar  erinnert  aulFallend  an  den  der  kleinen  Gold-  und  Silbermiinzen  Philipp’s  II. 
von  Makedonien  (359 — 336  vor  Chr.)  und  scheint  von  diesen  her  entlehnt  oder  min- 
destens  durch  sie  beeinfluBt  zu  sein.  Diese  typologische  Ubereinstimmung,  der  auch 
eine  stilistische  zur  Seite  steht,  darf  mit  ihr  zusammen  als  Bestatigung  der  Richtig- 
keit  des  obigen  Zeitansatzes  fiir  No.  64  gewertet  werden. 

In  der  Zeit  von  Memnon’s  Vertreibung  durch  Alexander  den  GroBen  (334  vor  Chr.) 
bis  zum  Ende  des  IV.  Jahrhunderts  hat  Lampsakos  sich,  wie  wir  sahen,  mit  einer 
Umpragung  erst  der  alteren  Obole  (wie  No.  35— 54)  und  dann  anch  der  Diobolen  (wie 
No.  55 — 62)  begniigt.  Fiir  diese  aulFallende  Erscheinung  wird  man  nach  einem 
Grunde  zu  suchen  haben.  Ein  wirtschaftlicher  Niedergang  der  Stadt  kommt  als 
Ursache  schwerlich  in  Betracht,  da  sich  mit  einem  solchen  nicht  wohl  vereinigen 
lieBe,  daB  Epikur  im  Jahre  310  seine  Schule  von  Mytilene  nach  Lampsakos  ver- 
legte  und  dort  eine  groBe  Zahl  treuer  Anhanger,  unter  ihnen  die  reichsten  und 
angesehensten  Jiinglinge  Leonteus  und  Idomeneus,  gewann,  deren  letzterer  zusammen 
mit  Metrodoros  von  Lampsakos  die  materielle  Ausstattung  und  Versorgung  der 
Schule  iibernahm^).  So  wird  man  kaum  fehlgehen  mit  der  Annahme,  daB  das 
Alexandergeld  in  seinem  raschen  Siegeszuge  sich  alsbald  auch  Lampsakos  eroberte 
und  die  Stadt  nicht  saumte,  dieses  so  schnell  beliebt  gewordene  Zahlungsmittel  zu 

Babelon’s  Invent.  Waddington  erklart,  wo  das 
als  No.  3 „/•£“  abgebildete,  jetzt  in  Paris  be- 
findlicbe  Exemplar  natiirlich  mit  der  voran- 
stebenden  Kupfermiinze  (No.  2 „/R“)  den  Platz 
zu  tauschen  hat. 

0 von  Fritze,  Nomisma  IX,  S.  43  hebt  richtig  her- 
vor,  daB  diese  Drachmen  „ausnahraslos  die 
Merkmale  des  Verfalles  aufweisen".  Sie  ge- 
bbren  also  bestimmt ' ans  Ende  seiner  vermut- 
lich  im  Jahre  363  vor  Chr.  abschlicfienden 
Gruppe  III,  konnen  aber  sehr  wohl  auch  noch 
iiber  diese  Grenze  hinaus  fortgepragt  sein  als 
Teilstiicke  zu  der  nur  aus  Tetradrachmen  be- 
stehenden  Gruppe  IV. 

®)  Vgl.  von  Arnim  bei  Pauly-Wissowa,  Pieal-En- 
cyclop.  VI,  1,  Sp.  134. 


')  So  ist  sein  Gewicht  angegeben  von  Wadding- 
ton,  Rev.  num.  1863,  S.  235,  1 = Melanges  II 
(1867),  S.  19,1;  Imhoof-Blumer,  Monn.  gr., 
S.  246,  89;  Babelon,  Invent.  Waddington  1362 
und  Traite  II,  2,  No.  56.  Die  vier  anderen  be- 
kannten  Exemplare  wiegen;  2,65  (im  Handel), 
2,56  (London),  2,40  (ehera.  Consul  Weber),  2,23 
g (Haag).  Sie  ebenfalls  noch  fur  „chiische“ 
Drachmen  zu  erklaren,  ist  kaum  moglich;  man 
wird  sie  vielmehr  als  lampsakenische  Diobolen 
(wie  No.  55 — 62,  normal  ca.  2,57  g)  anzusprechen, 
also  einen  Wahrungswecbsel  zu  konstatieren 
haben.  DaB  diese  Silbermiinzen  des  Orontas 
auf  der  Vs.  dessen  Portrat  zeigen,  wie  Gardner 
a.  a.  0.  angibt,  ist  eine  Unrichtigkeit,  die  sich 
vermiitlich  au.s  dem  Versehen  auf  Taf.  Ill  zu 


Die  Silberpriigung  von  Lampsakos. 


29 


adoptieren,  das  ilir  den  bequemsten  AnschluB  an  den  damaligcn  Welthandel  ermbg- 
lichte,  Nicht  nur  answarts  gepragte  Alexandermiinzen  stromten  vermutlicb  in 
Fiille  nach  der  bliihenden,  weinberuhmten  Stadt,  sondern  aucli  die  einheimisclie 
Milnzsclnniede  beteiligte  sich  an  deren  Herstellung.  Als  solche  lampsakenische 
•Geprage  mit  Alexandertypen  geben  sich  die  Goldstatere  Ko.  GOd.  606.  613  a und 
die  Drachmen  No.  605.  607.  612.  614.  616.  618.  912  Muller’s  zu  erkennen  durch  das 
auf  ihnen  angebrachte  Flhgelpferd-Vorderteil,  das  im  Schema  mit  dem  lampsakeni- 
schen  genan  iibereinstimmt  und  stilistisch  eine  zwischen  den  Emissionen  No.  65 
nnd  66  liegende  Entwickelungsstnfe  darstellt^).  Tetradrachmen  hat  Lampsakos  im 
IV.  Jahrhundert  anscheinend  nicht  gepragt,  wenigstens  sind  solche  bis  jetzt  nur 
aus  erheblich  spaterer  Zeit  nachweisbar  (s.  unten  S.  32). 

Der  IJbergang  zum  attischen  MhnzfuB,  den  die  Stadt  mit  ihrem  Ansclilufi  an 
das  Alexandergeld  vollzog,  muBte ' es  erwiinscht  erscheinen  lassen,  ihr  im  TJmlauf 
befindliches  Kleinsilber,  soweit  ohne  nennenswerte  Verluste  moglich,  dem  neuen 
System  einzugliedern.  Von  den  altesten,  wohl  langst  auBer  Kurs  gesetzten  Ge- 
pragen  aus  dem  VI.  und  dem  ersten  Drittel  des  V.  Jahrhunderts  abgesehen,  eigneten 
sich  hierzu  am  besten  die  Obole  aus  der  Zeit  von  ca.  464 — 415  vor  Chr.  Die  durch 
ihre  normale  Abnutzung  bewirkte  GewichtseinbuBe  hatte  diese  Stiicke  vermutlicb 
bereits  zum  groBen  Teil  auf  den  Betrag  attischer  Vierteldrachmen  (Trihemiobolien, 
normal  ca.  1,09  g)  herabsinken  lassen,  und  zu  solchen  wrxrden  sie  nunmehr  offiziell 
devalviert.  DaB  dies  nicht  mehr  wie  in  alterer  Zeit  durch  einfache  Tarifierung 
geschah  (vgl.  oben  S.  14,  Anm.  1),  sondern  durch  IJberpragen  mit  neuen  Typen, 
entsprang  vielleicht  demWunscbe,  den  erweiterten  Verkehrsbeziehungen  entsprcchend 
ein  auch  im  Handel  mit  Fremden  bequem  verwendbares  Teilstiick  zur  Alexaiider- 
drachme  zu  gewinnen.  Sein  Vorhandensein  war  z.  B.  notig  zur  glatten  Erledigung 


')  Numism.  d’ Alexandre  le  Grand  (1855).  Ebenso 
auch  JS'^o.  915—917  (Classe  VI)  aus  dem  II.  Jahr- 
hundert vor  Chr.  (s.  unten  S.  32).  Bestimmt 
nicht  lampsakenisch  sind  dagegen  No.  G02.  603. 
G09.  610.  914,  -wilhrend  uber  No.  608.  611.  613. 
616.  617.  619.  913  mir  mangels  vorliegender  Ori- 
ginale  oder  Abgtisse  kein  Urteil  moglich  ist. 

^)  Ein  diesem  gleichendes  Fliigelpferd-Vorderteil 
findet  sich  aucli  auf  Lysimachosdrachmen  mit 
Alexandertypen  aus  der  Zeit  kurz  nach  306 
vor  Chr.  Es  erscheint  bier  gesellt  zu  dem  L6- 
wenvorderteil  und  einem  dritten,  von  Muller  als 
Eackel  gedeuteten  Beizeichen  (Die  Mzn.  des 
thrac.  Konigs  Lysimachus,  1858,  No.  24  und 
hiermit  identisch  No.  23,  wie  die  mir  vorliegende 
Schwefelpaste  von  Mionnet  I,  445,  115  ergibt). 
Da  aber  auf  No.  25  ein  Delphin,  auf  No.  26.  27 
,je  ein  Monogramm  die  Stelle  dieses  Fliigel- 
pferdes  einnimmt,  wird  man  es  kaum  mit  Mtiller 
(S.  42)  als  Stadtwappen  aufifassen  diirfen  und 
die  Prageortsbezeichnung  vielmehr  in  dem  kon- 
stanten  Lowenvorderteil  zu  sehen  haben  als 


Hiuweis  auf  die  Hauptstadt  Lysimacheia,  aus 
deren  Ofhcin,  wie  Muller  S.  43  selbst  fiir  wahr- 
scheinlich  erklart,  diese  ersten  Miinzen,  die 
Lysimachos  als  Konig  in  seinem  eigenen  Namen 
schlagen  liefi,  hervorgegangen  sein  werden. 
Wenn  endlich  Miiller  S.  76  einzig  auf  Gruud 
des  Monogramms  AA,  das  er  in  AAM  auflbst, 
auch  die  Lysimacbostetradrachmen  No.  387.  388 
Lampsakos  zuschreibt,  so  widerspricht  dem 
1)  das  Fehlen  des  auch  noch  auf  den  spaten 
Alexandertetradrachmen  No.  915 — 917  die  Stadt 
Lampsakos  symbolisierehden  Fliigelpferd-Vor- 
derteils,  2)  der  Umstand,  daB  in  dem  Mono- 
gramm der  Buchstabe  A voransteht,  3)  daB  auf 
den  Alexanderdrachmen , auf  die  Miiller  sich 
beruft,  dieses  Monogramm  bei  konstantem  Flii- 
gelpferd-Vorderteil  mit  anderen  wecbselt,  also 
keine  Miinzstattenbezeichnung  sein  kann,  und 
4)  daB  bei  No.  388  die  Mondsichel  dazu  zwingt, 
das  Stiick  in  die  von  Miiller  Sigeion  zugeteilte 
Gruppe  No.  391 — 402  (des  engeren  No.  397 — 
401)  einzureihen. 


30 


H.  Gaebler, 


solcher  Finanzmanipulationen,  wie  sie  die  in  der  zweiten  Halfte  des  III.  Jahrhun- 
derts  vor  Chr.  verfaBte  pseudo-aristotelische  Okonomik  (II,  7,  S.  16  Susemikl)  von 
Lampsakos  berichtet.  Als  namlich  einmal  die  Ankunft  zalilreiclier  Trieren  erwartet 
wurde,  wies  die  Stadt  die  Kaufleute  an,  den  Fremden  fiir  den  SchefFel  Grersteninehl 
2 und  fiir  den  %o£vg  Olivenbl  IJ-  Dracbmen  iiber  den  gewohnlicben  Verkaufspreis 
abznnehmen  und  diesen  Mebrerlos  an  die  Stadtkasse  abzufiibren.  Urn  einer  Ver- 
wechselung  mit  den  erst  vor  kurzer  Zeit  ausgegebeiien  Obolen  No.  64,  die  fiir  den 
Lokalverkehr  bestelien  bleiben  konnten,  vorzubeugen,  anderte  man  den  Vs.-Typus 
etwas  ab  und  wablte  einen  Apollonkopf  mit  ] an  gem  Haar  (No.  66).  Einige  Zeit 
spater  (um  300  vor  Chr.)  entschloB  sich  die  Stadt  dazu,  auch  die  Diobolen  (wie 
No.  55—62)  umznpragen,  und  gewann  damit  dem  sinkenden  attischen  Miinzfub  ent- 
sprechende  Tetrobolen  (urspriinglicb  normal  ca.  2,98  g).  Ihr  Vs.-Typus,  der  Athena- 
kopf  mit  zweibuschigem  korintbischen  Helm  (No.  67),  ist  sichtlich  dem  der  Alexander- 
statere  jener  Zeit  nacbgebildet. 

Die  aus  rein  auBerlichen  Grriinden  an  den  SchluB  unserer  Grruppe  IV  gestellten 
Emissionen  No.  68  und  69  zeigen  einen  so  starken  stilistischen  Verfall,  daB  man 
sie  unbedenklicb  um  mindestens  l.y  Jahrhunderte  spater  als  No.  67  ansetzen  kann. 
Es  geben  ibnen  zweifellos  die  sogleicb  zu  besprechenden  Tetradracbmen  No.  70 — 74 
(Giruppe  V)  zeitlich  voran,  so  dab  wir  in  No.  68.  69  die  letzten  Auslaufer  der 
lampsakeniscben  Silberpragung  zu  sehen  haben.  Die  vier  Exemplare  von  No.  68 
wiegen  1,88  (Scbottenstift  in  Wien),  1,85  (Haag),  1,67  (McClean),  1,66  g (Kopen- 
bagen),  das  Unikum  No.  69  (Paris):  1,90  g;  ob  es  sich  bier  noch  um  Halbdracbmen 
stark  gesunkenen  attischen  FuBes  handelt,  bleibt  zweifelhaft. 


Grruppe  V. 

mm 

70)  28  Vs.  Kopf  des  bartigen  Priapos  nacb  r.  mit  Epheukranz,  Binde,  Henkei- 

frisur  und  drei  langen  gedrebten  Locken,  von  denen  eine  im  Nacken, 
zwei  einander  parallel  scbrag  nacb  vorn  steif  berabbangen ; der  Bart 
ist  in  fiinf  gedrehte  Wiilste  geflochten.  Perlkreis. 

Rs.  AAMYA  r.,  KHNQN  1.  in  senkrecbten  Zeilen,  unten  dreizeilig  Beamten- 
name.  Apollon  Kitbaroidos  mit  [Lorbeerkranz],  gerolltem  Haar  u. 
darunter  berabfallender  Locke,  langem  bocbgegiirteten  Gewand,  Uber- 
wurf  und  Mantel  nacb  r.  schreitend  auf  Bodenlinie,  in  der  gesenkten 
R.  das  Plektron,  im  1.  Arm  die  Kitbara;  im  Feld  1.  unten  Monogramm, 
im  Feld  r.  vor  dem  Knie  des  Gottes  Pfeil  nacb  r.  auf  gespanntem  Bo- 
gen.  — Tafel  II,  42. 

71)  32  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  70,  aber  der  Bart  in  losen  Locken. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  70,  dock  mit  A statt  A und  anderem  Beamtennamen 
(zweizeilig);  im  Feld  unten  1.  Monogramm,  r.  DreifuB.  — Tafel  11,43 
(Unikum). 

72)  80  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  70. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  70,  aber  mit  anderem  Beamtennamen  (zweizeilig);  im 
Feld  unten  1.  Monogramm,  r.  Palmzweig  aufrecbt.  — Tafel  II,  44 
(Unikum). 


Die  Silberprilgung  von  Lampsakos. 


31 


mm 

73)  30  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  70. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  72,  aber  mit  anderem  Beamtennamen ; der  Lorbeerkranz 
deutlich;  im  Feld  unten  1.  Monogramm,  r.  Kultbild  der  Hekate  mit  Kala- 
tbos,  Schleier  und  langem  bochgegiirteten  Grewand  mit  Uberwurf  nach 
vorn  stehend  anf  Bodenlinie  und  in  den  seitwarts  gestreckten  Handen 
je  eine  brennende  Fackel  aufrecht  haltend,  zwischen  zwei  nach  auBen 
gerichteten  Lb  wen  (nur  die  VorderteiTe  sichtbar). 

74)  30  Vs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  70. 

Rs.  Ebenso  wie  No.  73,  doch  mit  A statt  A,  das  Hekate-Kultbild  doppel- 
kbpfig  und  ohne  die  Lbwen.  — Tafel  II,  45. 

Lie  unsere  Giruppe  V bildenden  lampsakenischen  Silberemissionen  No.  70 — 74, 
von  denen  zur  Zeit  neun  Exemplare  vorliegen,  reprasentieren  zusammen  nur  vier 
Vs.-Stempel,  indem  neben  No.  71  je  einer  die  beiden  Unika  No.  72.  73,  die  zwei 
Verbreter  von  No.  70  und  die  vier  von  No.  74  geliefert  hat.  Der  auf  ihnen  dar- 
gestellte  Kopf  wird  nach  Waddington’s  Vorgang*)  jetzt  allgemeiu  mit  Recht  als 
Priapos  gedeutet,  dessen  Herme  auf  Kaisermiinzen  der  Stadt  erscheint  (z.  B.  Brit. 
Cat.  Mysia,  Taf.  XX,  13.  16)  und  der  in  Lampsakos  ganz  besondere  Verehrung 
genoB  (vgl.  -lessen  bei  Roscher,  Myth.  Lex.  Ill,  2,  Sp.  2968  f.  2977.  2981).  Er  wurde 
dort  wie  an  alien  durch  den  Kult  von  Lampsakos  und  Umgegend  beeinlluBten  Orten 
fiir  wesensgleich  mit  Dionysos  gehalten,  und  sein  bartiger,  epheubekranzter  Kopf 
auf  No.  70 — 74- entspricht  denn  auch  durchaus  einem  Dionysoskopf,  als  den  man 
ibu  friiher  falscblich  auifaBte^). 

Was  die  zeitliche  Aufeinanderfolge  der  vier  Vs.-Stempel  betrilft,  so  ist  ohne 
Zweifel  No.  70  an  den  Anfang  zu  stellen.  Von  der  stilistischen  Hbhe,  die  sich  hier 
in  der  feinen  Modellierung  des  Glesichts,  besonders  der  Augen-  und  Wangenpartie, 
sowie  der  sorgfaltigen  Wiedergabe  der  gedrehten  Baitwiilste  oflPenbart,  bedeutet 
der  grbber  und  weniger  plastisch  geformte  Kopf  No.  71  bereits  einen  Schritt  ab- 
warts.  Fiir  seine  spatere  Entstehung  spricht  auch  die  UnregelmaBigkeit  und  groBere 
Dicke  des  ibn  umschlieBenden  Perlkreises.  Noch  tiefer  stehen  die  Kbpfe  No.  72 
(=  73)  und  No.  74.  Trotz  ibres  stilistischen  Abstandes  von  einander  wird  man 
den  sie  trennenden  zeitlichen  Zwischenraum  nicht  allzu  groB  annebmen  diirfen,  da 
die  Riickseiten  von  No.  73  und  74  den  gleichen  Beamten  (Promethion  Sohn  des 
Lampon)^.  nennen.  DaB  es  sich  aber  um  zwei  verschiedene  Amtsperioden  desselben 
handelt,  ist  zu  schlieBen  aus  gewissen  Einzelheiten,  wie  dem  Feblen  der  Lbwen  an 
seinem  Beizeichen  und  der  verandeiten  Form  des  Monogramms  im'  Feld  1.  auf  der 
Rs.  von  No.  74.  Dazu  stimmt  auch  der  Eindruck,  den  Schriftcharakter  und  Stil 
der  Apollonfigur  auf  No.  74  machen.  Nach  ihnen  gehbrt  diese  Emission  unzweifel- 
haft  aus  Ende  der  Reihe  und  No.  73  (abgeb.  Nomisma  VIII,  Taf.  II,  8)  geht  ihr 
voran.  Auch  die  Riickseiten  von  No.  70—74  stehen  im  Einklang  mit  der  aus  dem 
Stil  des  Priaposkopfes  sich  ergebenden  Abfolge,  wenngleich  die  hier  leider  schlechte 
Erhaltung  der  beiden  Exemplare  von  No.  70  (London:  15,93  g;  Paris:  15,24  g)  dies 
nicht  so  deutlich  hervortreten  laBt. 

9 Rev.  nutn.  1852,  S.  90  = Voyage  en  Asie-Mi-  , (1883),  S.  207  und  zu  Tafel  XIII,  30;  Over- 

, neure  au  point  de  vue  numism.  (1853),  S.  74.  I beck,  Kunstniythologie  III,  5 (1889;  Apollon), 

^)  So  noch  Gardner,  The  types  of  greek  coins  ] S.  301,  49. 


5 


32 


H.  G aeb ler 


Vergleicht  man  diese  lampsakenisclien  Tetradrachmen  No.  70 — 74  mit  den  ent- 
sprechenden  Stiicken  von  Alexandreia  Troas,  so  zeigt  sick,  dafi  die  friihesten,  164 
und  160  vor  Clir.  gepragten  Emissionen  der  letzteren  (Noinisma  VI,  Taf.  Ill,  1.  2) 
stilistisch  etwa  in  der  Mitte  unserer  Grappe  V steken,  die  kiernack  ungefakr  durck 
die  Jakre  175  und  150  vor  Ckr.  zu  begrenzen  sein  dlirfte,  eine  Epocke,  der  z.  B. 
auck  das  Nomisma-  IX,  Taf.  VI,  13  abgebildete  Tetradrackmon  von  Kyzikos  an- 
gekort  (vgl.  von  Fritze  dort  S.  51  f.). 

Wir  wissen,  da6  im  Bruderkriege  zwiscken  Antiockos  Hierax  und  Seleukos  II. 
Lampsakos  sick  unter  den  Sckutz  des  pergameniscken  Kbnigs  Attalos  I.  stellte  und 
ikm  auck  in  der  Folgezeit  unangefockten  treu  blieb,  dak  aber  nack  dessen  Tode 
Antiockos  III.  im  Jakre  197  vor  Ckr.  von  Eumenes  II.  die  Abtretung  der  Stadt 
verlangte  und  Verrnittelungsversucke,  die  von  ikr  angerufen  Bom  196  und  192 
unternakm,  sckeiterten ').  Wenn  auck  nickts  darliber  verlantet,  ob  es  Antiockos  III. 
gelungen  war,  die  Stadt,  der  er  vergeblick  als  Lockmittel  die  Antonomie  aus  seiner 
Hand  versprocken  katte,  gewaltsam  sick  zu  eigen  zu  macken  (Liv.  XXXV,  42),  so 
bedeutete  seine  Niederlage  bei  Magnesia  (190  vor  Ckr.)  dock  auck  fiir  Lampsakos 
begreiflickerweise  AnlaC  genug,  sick  an  der  GroBsilberpragnng  der  ikre  wieder- 
gewonnene  Ereikeit  feiernden  Grieckenstadte  Kleinasiens  zu  beteiligen.  Dies  geschak 
offenbar  zunacbst  durck  Ausgabe  von  Alexandertetradrackinen  (No.  915 — 917  Muller’s, 
s.  oben  S.  29,  Anm.  1).  Denn  stilistisck  sind  diese  unserer  Gruppe  V iiberlegen 
und  zeigen  aukerdem  bessere  Buckstabenformen  sowie  volleres  Gejvickt.  Man  ist 
daker  berecktigt  sie  zeitlick  voranzustellen  und  ikr  Ersckeinen  mit  der  Scklackt 
bei  Magnesia  in  Verbindung  zu  bringen.  Erst  spater  ging  Lampsakos  daran,  Tetra- 
drackmen  mit  eigenen  Typen  zu  pragen  (No.  70 — 74),  was  nickt  befremden  kann, 
wenn  man  z.  B.  Alexandreia  Troas  (nack  Ausweis  des  bis  jetzt  vorliegenden  Ma- 
terials) erst  im  Jakre  164  vor  Ckr.  und  um  eben  diese  Zeit  auck  Kyzikos  den 
gleicken  Sckritt  tun  siekt  (vgl.  von  Fritze,  Nomisma  VI,  S.  28  und  IX,  S.  51  f.). 

Dak  die  lampsakeniscke  Silberpragung  nickt  mit  diesen  stattlicken  Tetra- 
drackmen  etfektvoll  ausklingt,  ist  sckon  oben  S.  30  bemerkt  worden;  sie  nimmt 
vielmehr  mit  den  Emissionen  No.  68.  69  ein  unriikmliches  Ende,  okne  dak  sick  fiir 
dercn  Ausgabe  ein  genauerer  Zeitpxinkt  ermitteln  lieke.  Dock  beweisen  sie,  dak 
Lampsakos  als  treue  Verbiindete  der  Attaliden  und  Freundin  Boms  auck  nack  Er- 
ricktung  der  Provinz  Asia  seine  Freikeit  bekielt. 


Verzeichnis  der  auf  Tafel  I und  II  abgebildeten  Exemplare. 


Tafel  I. 

1— b.  iJerlin. 

■1.  lirtissel. 

5.  Ilirsdi,  Auktionskat.  XXI 
(1908),  2440,  Taf.  XXXIV. 

0.  Eggcr,  Auktionskat.  XXXIX 
(1012),  305,  Taf.  X. 

7.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  78,  4. 


8.  Berlin. 

9.  Paris  (Waddington  872). 

10.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  78,  2. 

11.  Berlin. 

1 1 a.  llirsch , Auktionskat.  XIII 
(1905),  1952  = XXV,  9G2. 

12.  Gotha. 

13.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  79,  10. 


14.  Berlin. 

15.  Paris  (Waddington  874). 

16 — 18.  Berlin. 

19.  Gotha. 

20.  Briissel. 

21.  Egger,  Auktionskat.  XLI 
(1912),  537,  Taf.  XIV. 

22.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  80,  19, 


‘)  Vgl.  Niesc,  Geschichte  der  gricchischen  und  luakedonischeu  btaaten  II,  S,  158.  391.  042  f 609  f 680. 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 


33 


23.  Berlin. 

24.  London  (neue  Erwerbuug). 

25.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  80,  16. 

26.  Weber  f (London). 

27.  Newell  (New  York). 

28.  Paris  (Waddington  875). 

29.  Hirsch,  Auktionskat.  XXV 
(1909),  1787,  Taf.  XXL 

30.  Berlin. 

31.  Cambridge  (Leake). 

32.  Berlin. 

33.  Berlin. 

34.  Athen. 

35 — 40.  Berlin. 

41.  Athen. 

42.  Berlin. 

43.  Berlin. 

Tafel  II. 

1.  Miincben. 

2.  Hirsch,  Auktionskat.  XXV 
(1909),  1796. 

3.  Kopenhagen. 

4.  Berlin. 

Berlin,  Juni  1922. 


5.  Lambros  f (Athen). 

6.  Cambridge  (Leake). 

7.  Kopenhagen. 

8.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  83,41. 

9.  Hirsch,  Auktionskat.  XXV 
(1909),  1795. 

10  London  (aus  Slg.  H.  Weber). 

11.  Paris  (Luynes). 

12.  Paris. 

13.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  83,  45. 

14.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  83,  44. 

15.  Turin  Museum,  Cat.  3696. 

16.  Berlin. 

17.  Athen. 

18.  Paris  (Luynes). 

19.  Rollin  & Feuardent  (1905). 

20.  Berlin. 

21.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  83,  43. 

22.  Miinchen. 

23.  Berlin. 

24.  Paris. 

25.  Weber  t (London). 

26.  Paris. 


27.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  82,  34. 

28.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  82,  32. 

29.  Hirsch,  Auktionskat.  XXV 
(1909),  1793. 

30.  Kopenhagen. 

31.  London  (aus  Slg.  H.  Weber). 

32.  Berlin. 

33.  Paris  (Luynes). 

34.  Naville,  Auktionskat.  I (1920; 
Slg.  Pozzi),  2231,  Taf.  LXVII. 

35.  Paris  (Luynes). 

36.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  83,  48. 

37.  Hirsch,  Auktionskat.  XXV 
(1909),  1798. 

38.  Paris  (Waddington  883). 

39.  Paris  (Waddington  882). 

40.  Cambridge  (McClean). 

41.  Paris. 

42.  London  (1899  erworben). 

43.  Paris  (Waddington  884). 

44.  London,  Cat.  Mysia  86,  68. 

45.  Cambridge,  Corpus -Christi- 
College. 

H.  Graebler. 


Nachtrag  zu  S.  4,  Z.  11;  W'^ahrend  der  Drucklegung  dieser  Arbeit  erhielt  ich  Ende  August 
1922  von  Herrn  Edward  T.  Newell  (New  York)  den  AbguB  eines  in  seinem  Besitz  befindlichen  Dio- 
bolons  der  Emission  No.  1,  durch  welches  sich  ftir  diese  die  Anzahl  der  vorliegenden  Exemplare  von 
2 auf  3 erhobt.  Das  mit  denselben  Stempeln  wie  das  Leipziger  (2,31  g)  gepragte  Stuck  ist  2,41  g 
schwer  und  sein  Gewicht  demnach  in  Z.  17  hinter  2,52  (No.  6)  einzuschieben.  Herrn  Newell  darf  ich 
hier  den  Dank  fur  die  Abgiisse  seiner  lampsakenischen  Silbermiinzen  sowie  zwei  vorangegangene  Sen- 
dungen  von  Abgiissen  seines  kyzikenischen  Elektrons  wiederholen. 


Register  zu  Nomisma  I — XII. 

Die  Heftnunimern  siud  zwecks  Raumersparnis  mit  arabischen  Ziffern  wiedergegeben  imd  durch  Fett- 
druck  hervorgehoben,  die  Anmerkungen  durch  kleinerc  Typen  von  den  Seitenzahlen  unterschieden. 


I.  Verzeichnis  der  einzelnen  Arbeiten. 


Assmann,  E.,  Die  babylonische  Herkunft  von  as,  aes,  raudus,  uncia,  libra 
Fritze,  II.  von,  Sestos:  die  Menas-Inschrift  und  das  Munzwesen  der  Stadt 
„ Asklepiosstatuen  in  Pergamon 

„ Nochmals  das  Corpus  nummorum 

„ Die  autonomen  Miinzen  von  Abdera ; eine  cbronologische  Studio 

„ Die  autonomen  Miinzen  von  Ainos ; eine  cbronologische  Studio 

„ Der  Attiskult  in  Kyzikos 

„ Die  vorkaiseil.  Miinzen  von  Adramytion;  cbronologische  Untersuchuugen 

„ Aufgaben  der  griechischen  Miinzwissenschaft 

„ Die  Elektronpragung  von  Kyzikos  ; eine  cbronologische  Studie 

„ Die  Silberpragung  von  Kyzikos : eine  cbronologische  Studie 

„ Die  autonome  Kupferpragung  von  Kyzikos ; eine  cbronologische  Studie 

Fritze,  H.  von,  und  H.  Gaebler,  Terina 
Gaebler,  II.,  Beroia 

„ Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos:  eine  cbronologische  Studie 

Hill,  G.  F.,  Notes  on  the  Alexandrine  Coinage  of  Phoenicia 
Imhoof-Blumer,  F.,  Die  Amazonen  auf  griechischen  Miinzen 

„ Beitrage  zur  Erklarung  griechischer  Miinztypen ; 


5,  1—9 

1,  1—13 
2,  19—35 
2,  3G— 41 

3,  1-30 
4,  16—32 

4,  33—42 

5,  10—24 

6,  24—33 
7,  1-38 

9,  34—56 

10,  1—32 
1,  14—22 
1,  23—28 
12,  1—33 

4,  1—15 

2,  1—18 


I.  Seefahrende  Heroen 

II.  Athleten  und  Agonotheten  mit  Preiskronen 

III.  FluBgotter  mit  Kindern 

IV.  Knochelspiel  vor  Kultbildern 
V.  Eine  Sage  von  Parion 

VI.  Grundungssage  von  Prusa 

VII.  Aedicula  als  Kopfschmuck  der  Artemis  Ephesia 
VIII.  Satyr  und  Nymphe 

IX.  Pantheistische  Gotterbilder 
X.  Alte  Kultbilder 

Seltman,  C.  T,,  The  Temide  Coins  of  Olympia  8,  23 — 65. 


5,  25—39.  6,  1 
5,  39—42.  6,  2' 
6,  2—4 
6,  4—7.  23 
6,  7—8 
6,  8—11 
6,  11—12 
6,  12—13 
6,  13—23 
8,  1-22, 
9,  1—33.  11,  1—39 


II,  a.  Lander,  Volksstamme,  Stadte. 


Abdera  (Thrakien)  3,  1 ff.  4,  18.  26.  32. 

7,  29,  2.  32.  33.  8, 3.  9,  39.  55.  56.  12,  2,  i.  3.  17 
Abydos  (Troas)  1,  10.  5,  29  ff.  35,4.  7,  24. 

8,  2f.  9,  52,2.  12,  26 


Achaier,  phthiotische  (Thessalien)  5,  26 

„ , verbundete  (Peloponnesos)  9,  30.  32 

Adramytion  (Mysien)  5,  10  ff.  12,  2.  25.  26 
Aesar  (Athiopien)  5,  5 

Agathopolis  (Thrakische  Chersonesos)  1,  5,  2 
Agrigentum,  s.  Akragas 

Agylla  (Etrurien)  5,  6 


Agyrion  (Sicilien) 

If  5,  2 

Aigai  (Aiolis) 

2,  3.  6.  7.  17 

Aigiale  (Amorgos) 

8,  4f. 

Aigialos  (Paphlagonien) 

8,  4 

Aigina  (Insel  bei  Attika) 

4,  20.  8,  33, 1 

Aigypten 

00 

Aineia  (Makedonien) 

5,  35 

Ainos  (Thrakien) 

4,  16  ff. 

Aitolien 

12,  7 

Aizanis  (Phrygien) 

2,  25,1.  6,  3.  8,  15,1 

Akanthos  (Makedonien) 

3,  14.  17 

Register  zu  Nomisma  I — XII. 


35 


Ake-Ptolemais  (Phonicien)  4,  C.  10  ff.  13.  14 
Akkad  (Agade)  in  Babjdonien  5,  7 

Akragas  (Sicilien)  11,  29 

Alexandreja  (Troas)  6,  27  ff.  8,19.  9,51.52.  12,32 
Alexandreia  (Aigypten)  2,  17.  6,  4,  i.  17  f.  21 


17 


Alia  (Pkrygien) 

Amaseia  (Pontos) 

Amastris  (Paphlagonien) 
Amisos  (Pontos)  2,  2.  5. 
Amphiktionen,  delphische 
Amphipolis  (Makedonien) 
Amyzon  (Karien) 

Anchialos  (Thrakien) 
Anemurion  (Kilikieu) 

Ankyra  (Galatien)  2,  4 
Ankyra  (Phrygien) 

Antiocheia  (Karien) 
Antiocheia  (Pisidien) 

Apameia  (Phrygien)  1 

Apameia  Myrlea  (Bitliynien) 
Aplirodisias  (Karien)  1,  2,  c. 


15. 


1,  2 


Aphrodisias  (Kilikien) 
Apollonia  (Mysien) 

Apollonia  Salbake  (Karien) 
Apollonia  Tripolis  (Lydien) 
Arados  (Insel  bei  Phonicien) 
Argos  (Argolis) 

Arka  (Phonicien) 

Arkadien 
Asia  (Provinz) 

Aspendos  (Pamphylien) 

Assos  (Troas) 

Astakos  (Bithynien) 

Atarneus  (Mysien) 

Athen  1,  8,  10.  11.  27.  4,  18. 

27.  35.  8,  65, 


2,  4 
5,  13.  15 
5,  14,2.  15.  27.  28 
5,  13.  14.  15.  20 
9,  48, 1 
4,  24.  12,  7 
6,  15,  2 
5,  25.  40 

8,  1.  3 

17.  27, 1.  5,  27.  28.  42 
2,  12 

3.  fi,  2,  17.  8,  16 
4,  36,  ,3 
2, 7.  5,  23.  8,  13 
5,  35 

2,  27,1.  6,  6.  18  f. 
8,  9.  10, 3 
8,  1 

9,  37, 1 
8,  16 

2,  4 

4,  2ff.  14.  15 
9,  27.  11,  13 

4,  13 
9,  15 
2,  11 
6,  17.  8,  1 
12,  22 


9,  13.  24.  41.  44.45. 
12,  9.  10.  13.  21. 


Attaleia  (Lydien) 

Attuda  (Phrygien) 
Augusta  (Kilikieu) 
Azotos  (Phonicien) 

Babylonien 
Bargylia  (Karien) 

Beroia  (Makedonien) 
Berytos  (Phonicien) 
Bisalten  (Makedonien) 
Bit-Muranu  (Babylonien) 
Blaundos  (Lydien) 
Boiotien,  Boioter 
Brettier 

Bruzos  (Phrygien) 


12,  22 

10,  2 

5,  12.  27.  7,  22.  25. 

11,  39,1. 
24.  26.  27 
2,  4 
2,  4.  8,  13 
5,  41 
4,  11 

5,  1—9 
8,  5f.  7.  11 
1,  23  ff. 
4,  1.  3.  5,  35.  37 
3,  14.  15.  16 
5,  5 
2,  4 

6,14.  11,39,1 
1,  19 

2,  16.  8,  20 


Byzantion  (Thrakien)  5,  25.  40.  6,  2.  10,  2.  9,  44 

Chalkis  (Euboia)  1,  2,  fi.  5,  35,4.  8,  23.  33 
Chios  (Insel  bei  lonien)  7,  5,  i 

Coela  (Thrakische.  Chersonesos)  5,  35 


Daldis  (Lydien) 
Dardanos  (Troas) 
■Delphoi  (Phokis) 
Demetrias  (Thessalien) 
Derronen  (Makedonien) 
Dionysopolis  (Phrygien) 
Dokimeion  (Phrygien) 
Dur-Sin  (Babylonien) 


8,  21 

5,  23, 1.  31  f.  35 
9,  48, 1.  12,  10, 1 
5,  26  f. 
3,  15.  18 
2,  4.  8,  15 
8,  18 
5,-  7 


Edonen  (Makedonien)  3,  14.  15.  13 

Elaia  (Aiolis)  2,  31 

hllaius  (Thrakische  (3iersonesos)  ' 5,  26 

Elaiusa  Sebaste  (Kilikien)  2,  4.  17.  8,  19.  20 
Phis  (Stadt)  8,  23,  24,  43.  9,  28.  32.  11,  12 
Ephesos  (lonien)  2,  7.  15.  17.23.  26.  27.  31,1.4. 

5,  17.  20—23.  33.  6,  4 f . 9.  11  f.  23.  8,  3.  4.  5 

2,  28.  29.  12,  2 


1,  2 


Epidauros  (Argolis) 

Erythrai  (lonien) 

Etenna  (Pisidien) 

Etrusker 
Euippe  (Karien) 

Eukarpeia  (Phrygien) 

Eumeneia  (Phrygien) 

Euromos  (Karien) 

Eusebeia  (Kappadokien) 

Gabala  (Syrien) 

Gades  (Hispanien) 

Gambreion  (Mysien) 

Gaza  (ludaia) 

Gordos  lulia  (Lydien) 

Gortys  (Arkadien) 

Hadrianopolis  (Thrakien ) 

Hadrianotherai  (Mysien) 

Halikarnassos  (Kai'ien) 

Harpagion  (Mysien) 

Heliopolis  (Colesyrien) 

Heraia  (Arkadienj 
Herakleia  (Bithynien) 

Herakleia  Salbake  (Karien) 

Hierapolis  (Phrygien)  1,  2,7.  2,  4. 
Hieropolis  (Phrygien) 

Himera  (Sicilien) 

Hippo  (Hispanien) 

Hippo  (Bruttium) 

Hippo  (Zeugitana)  u.  Hippo  (Numidien) 


6,  1.  8,  1 
6,  7 
5,  1.  7.  9 
8,  15 
1,  2,3 
3.  2,  4 
6,  15,2 
8,  13 


8,  21 

5,  2 

9,  45.  10,  2 
12,  3,2.  7 
8,  21 
2,  27 


6,  10  f. 


2. 


5,  35,4 
9,  37, 1 
6,  16 
10,  2 
5,  40 
8,  57 
16.  17 
2,  12  f. 
6,  6.  19 
1,  2,3.7 
4,  24 
5,  5 
5,  5 
5,  5 


36 


Register  zu  Nomisma  I— XII. 


Hydisos  (Karien) 
Ilyllarima  (Karien) 
Hypaipa  (Lydien) 
Hyrgaleis  (Phrygien) 

lalysos  (Rhodes) 
lasos  (Karien) 

Ichnai  (Makedonien) 
Ilion  (Troas) 

Ilischer  Stadtebund 
Ilva  (Insel  bei  Etrufien) 
lolla  (Mysien) 
lonischer  Stadtebund 
loppe  (Samaria) 

Italien 

luliopolis  (Bithynien) 


6,  16 
8,  7 

6,  6.  8,  12  f. 

2,  4 

12,  2,2 
8,  7.  11 

3,  18 

1,  9.  5,  32.  35 
12,  26 
5,  6 

5,  10.  11.  12,  2.  25 
8,  3.  4 

4,  1,3 

5,  1.  2.  4.  6.  7.  8.  9 
4,  36,  3 


Kadoi  (Phrygien) 

Kaisareia  (Kappadokien) 

Kardia  (Thrakischc  Chersonesos) 

Karne  (Phonicien) 

Kassandreia  (Makedonien) 

Katana  (Sicilien) 

Kaunos  (Karien) 

Kaystrianoi  (Lydien) 

Keramos  (Karien) 

Kibyra  (Phrygien) 

Kidramos  (Karien) 

Kierion  (Thessalien) 

Kisthene  (Mysien) 

Klannudda  (Lydien) 

Klazomenai  (lonien) 

Knidos  (Karien) 

Kolophon  (lonien) 

Komama  (Pisidien) 

Komana  (Pontos) 

Korinth  5,  35.  40.  6,  12. 

Koroneia  (Boiotien) 

Kos  (Insel  bei  Karien) 

Kotiaeion  (Phrygien) 

Krithote  (Thrakische  Chersonesos) 

Kyaneai  (Lykien) 

Kyme  (Aiolis)  2,  1 — 3.  5.  6.  17. 

Kyrene  (Kyrenaike)  8,  24. 

Kyzikos  (Mysien)  1,  5,2.  4,  33ff.  6,  10,2.  12.21. 

7,  Iff.  8,  16.  9,  12,3.  34 ff.  10,  1ft’. 

12,  2.  7.  13.  14.  21.  22.  26.  28.  32 


8,  13 
2,  4.  17 

I,  8.  9 
4,  5.  14.  15 

6,  14 
4,  25, 1 
9,  37, 1 
8,  13 
6,  16 

14  f.  17.  8,  14.  15.  16 
8,  8f.  13.  15  f. 

2,  27 
5,  11 

8,  13 

8,  18.  12,  2,2 

9,  43 
8,  4 

8,  18.  19 
6,  14,1 
9,  24.  27.  12,  19 

II,  38 
2,  25 

14.  17 
1,  10 
8,  6,2 

8,  13 

9,  40 


1,  2,7.  2, 


Lakedaimon  (Lakonien)  8,  3.  9,  44.  45.  12,  10.  26 
Lampsakos  (Mysien)  5,  10.  11.  12.  8,  14.  9,  50,  2. 

12,  Iff. 

Laodikeia  (Phrygien)  5,  23.  33.  35.  42.  6,  13,  2.  19  f. 
Larak  (Babylonien)  5,  7 


Larissa  (Thessalien) 

4,  24 

Lesbos  (Insel) 

7,  1 

Lokroi,  epizephyrische 

9,  21,1,  31.  11,  34,1 

Lokroi,  opuntische 

4,  25.  11,  13,3 

Lugdunum  (Gallien) 

6,  22 

Lykien 

8,  6,  2.  55, 1 

Lysimacheia  (Thrakische 

Chersonesos)  1,  8.  9. 

3,  29.  4,  30.  12,  29,2 

Magnesia  (lonien) 

5,  27.  8,  4.  11 

Magnesia  (Lydien) 

2,  13.  17.  40 

Magueten  (Thessalien) 

5,  26  f. 

Maionia  (Lydien) 

8,  13.  14.  20 

Makedonen  1,  23  f.  6,  7.  8.  10,  10.  22 

Mantineia  (Arkadien) 

6,  10,2.  9,  15.  11,  12 

Marathos  (Phonicien) 

3,  28.  4,  5.  14.  15 

Markianopolis  (Moesia  inferior)  2,  27,  i.  28 

Maroneia  (Thrakien) 

4,  18.  31 

Mastaura  (Lydien) 

1,  2.  2,  4.  8,  15 

Medma  (Bruttium) 

5,  5 

Miletopolis  (Mysien) 

1,  2,7.  5,  19.  29.  6,  1 

Miletos  (lonien)  2,  7. 

31,4.  5,  29.  7,  17.  24. 
8,  5.  9,  3.5.  41.  10,  11 

Minoa  (Amorgos) 

8,  1,2.  5 

Mopsuestia  (Kilikien) 

5,  40 

Mostene  (Lydien) 

2,  4.  13 

Muranum  (Bruttium) 

5,  5 

Mylasa  (Karien) 

1,  2.  6,  15.  16 

Myra  (Lykien) 

8,  6 

Myrina  (Aiolis) 

2,  3.  6.  17 

Mytilene  (Lesbos) 

2,  27.  12,  28 

Nabatum  (Babylonien) 

5,  6 

Nagidos  (Kilikien) 

8,  10,8 

Nakrasa  (Lydien) 

2,  26 

Napata  (Athiopien) 

5,  6 

Nepet  (Etrurien) 

5,  6 

Nikaia  (Bithynien)  2,  ! 

21,2.  5,  40.  42.  6,  1.  2 

Nikomedeia  (Bithynien) 

2,  4,2.  11.  31,4. 
5,  27.  28.  29.  6,  1.  16 

Olbasa  (Pisidien) 

8,  19 

Olympia  (Elis)  8,  23  ff.  9,  1 ft’.  11,  1ft’. 

Olynthischer  Stadtebund 

9,  21 

Opis  (Upi)  in  Babylonien 

5,  7 

Orchomenos  (Boiotien) 

11,  38 

Ostia  (Latium) 

4,  37.  38 

Otroia  (Bithynien) 

5,  34,  2 

Otrus  (Phrygien) 

5,  33.  34.  35 

Pagasai  (Thessalien) 

5,  27 

Pantikapaion  (Taurische  Chersonesos)  3,  28 

Paphos  (Cypern) 

8,  1.  10,1 

Register  zu  Nomisma  I — XII. 


37 


Parion  (Mysien) 
Patrai  (Acliaia) 
Pautalia  (Thrakien) 
Peiraieus  (Attika) 
Pella  (Makedonien) 
Perga  (Pampliylien) 


5,  35.  6,  7 
5,  35 
6,  4, 1 
4,  37 
' 2,  17 
6,  14, 1 


Pergamon  (Mysien)  2,  G.  11.  19  ff.  40.  5,  16.  17. 
21—24.-  6,  29.  8,  5,  i.  16f.  9,  48,2.  49.  52. 

10,  2.  11 

Perinthos  (Thrakien)  1,  27.  % 10.  15—17. 

5,  25.  40.  41.  8,  1,2.  9,  50,2 

Pessinus  (Galatien)  4,  36,  3 

Pliarnakeia  (Pontos)  5,  14 

Phaselis  (Lykien)  8,  19 

Pbiladelpheia  (Lydien)  1,  2,4.  2,  11.  8,  13  f.' 
Philippoi  (Makedonien)  10,  9 

Philippopolis  (Thrakien)  2,  31, 4.  5,  40 

Phlius  (Phliasia)  2,  27 

Phokaia  (lonien)  2,  7.  17.  3,  10.  13,  i.  7, 1.  9,  35 
Phokis  11,  37.  38 

Phonicien,  Phonicier  5,  1.  2.  4.  6.  7 

Pinari  (Babylonien)  5,  7 

Pisa  (Elis)  • 9,  14  f.  20, 3 

Pitane  (Mysien)  * 2,  5.  17 

Plataia  (Boiotien)  11,  38 

Priapos  (Mysien)  9,  37,  i 

Prusa  (Bithynien)  6,  8 f. 

Prymnessos  (Phrygien)  4,  36,  3 

Rhegion  (Bruttiutn)  2,  27 

Rhodes  (Insel  bei  Karien)  4,  24,  2,  8,  9 ff. 

Rom  4,  31.  39.  5,  24.  6,  22.  28.  9,  52,  12,  32 

Sabate  (Etrurien)  5,  6 

Sabatba  (Arabien)  5,  5 

Sagalassos  (Pisidien)  6,  10, 2.  8,  1.  15 

Samos  (Insel)  2,  12.  5,  32  f.  6,  5.  8,  5.  9,  40 

Samothrake  (Insel)  5,  32 

Sardeis  (Lydien)  6,  2 f.  17.  8,  10,  2.  21 

Sebaste  (Phrygien)  5,  35 

Sebastopolis  (Karien)  8,  6 f.  11.  15 

Segesta  (Sicilien)  5,  35 

Selinus  (Sicilien)  6,  7 

Selinus  (Kilikien)  8,  1 

Serdike  (Thrakien)  2,  28,  2 

Sestos  (Thrakisebe  Chersonesos)  1,  Iff.  3,  27. 

4,  31.  5,  24 

Sicilien  1,  20.  4,  24.  5,  1.  2.  8,  63 

Side  (Pampliylien)  6,  14,  i 

Sidon  (Phonicien)  4,  6 ft‘.  14.  5,  2.  35,  5.  36.  37 
Sigeion  (Troas)  12,  29,  2 

Sikyon  (Sikyonia)  2,  27.  9,  20,3.  11,  38.  39 
Silandos  (Lydien)  8,  4,  i.  21 


Sillyon  (Pampliylien)  4,  36,3.  8,  19 

Sinope  (Papblagonien)  2, 2.  17.  5, 13. 14,  2.  15.  8,  2 
Siphnos  (Insel)  9,  45,  i 

Siris  (Lukanien)  5,  5 

Skepsis  (Troas)  4,  41.  5,  35.  12,  2 

Smyrna  (lonien)  2,  3f.  7 — 12.  17.30,1.31,4.  8,3.4 
Soractia  (Arabien)  5,  6 

Sparta,  s.  Lakedaimon 

Stektorion  (Phrygien)  2,  4.  5,  33  ff. 

Stoboi  (Makedonien)  ' 2,  5.  6,  14.  18 

Stratonikeia  (Karien)  1,  2,  .5.  6,  15,3.  8,  14.  15 
Suana  (Etrurien)  5,  6 

Suana,  das  beilige  Stadtviertel  von  Babylon  5,  6 

Subari  (Mesopotamien)  5,  5 

Sybaris  (Lukanien)  5,  5 

Synaos  (Phrygien)  2,  4 

Syrakus  (Sicilien)  1,  19.  4,  24.  7,  30.  8,  24,3.  56. 

9,  40, 2.  43.  11,  10,  2.  13,  3.  16,  2.  28,  2 


Tabai  (Karien) 

Tabala  (Lydien) 

Tamasos  (Cypern) 

Tarsos  (Kilikien) 
Taurische  Chersonesos 
Temenothyrai  (Phrygien) 
Temesa  (Bruttium) 
Tenedos  (Insel) 


6,  16  f. 
2,  4.  13 
5,  5 

5,  41.  6,  20  f. 

12,  7 
2,  4.  14 
5,  4.  5.  6 
12,  7 


Teos  (lonien)  3,  10.  13,  i.  5,  32.  8,  16.  12,  2,  i 
Terina  (Bruttium)  l,14ff.  7,32.  8,56.  9,  54 ff. 

12,  17 

Termera  (Karien)  9,  40 

Teutbrania  (Mysien)  9,  45 

Tbasos  (Insel)  4,  18.  12,  7 

Tbebai  (Thessalien)  5,  26 

Thebai  (Boiotien)  9,  14.  11,  13.  38 

Thebe  (Mysien)  5.  10.  12,  2.  25 

Themisonion  (Phrygien)  8,  22 

Thessalonike  (Makedonien)  12,  7 

Thrakisebe  Chersonesos  1,  4.  8.  10.  11 

Tburioi  (Lukanien)  1,  20  f.  9,  55 

Thyateira  (Lydien)  2,  4.  12.  14.  16.  17.  8,  14  f. 

Tintir,  der  sumerisebe  Name  von  Babylon  5,  7 

Tmolos  (Lydien)  8,  16.  21 

Tomaris  (Lydien)  2,  4 

Tomis  (Moesia  inferior)  2,  15.  17 

Traianopolis  (Phrygien)  2,  4 

Tralleis  (Lydien)  2,'  12.  5,  23.  6,  3 

Triballer  (Thrakien)  3,  22 

Tripolis  (Lydien),  s.  Apollonia 
Troas  2,  1 1 

Tyros  (Phonicien)  4,  12 — 14.  5,  35.  36  ff. 


Volaterrae  (Etrurien) 


5,  6 


6 


38 


Register  zn  Nomisma  I— XII. 


b.  Sonstiges  Geographisches. 


Berge  ; 

Ida,  Gebirge  (Troas)  4,  41 

Kronion,  bei  Olympia  (Elis)  9,  15 

Mykale,  Vorgebirge  (lonien)  8,  4 

Olympos  (Mysien)  5,  34 

PelioD,  Gebirge  (Thessalien)  5,  27 

Soracte  (Etrurieu)  5,  6 

FlLisse : 

Aesar  (Bruttium)  5,  5 

Farfarus  (Sabinerland)  5,  6 

Lametus  (Bruttium)  5,  5 

Nar  (Umbrien)  ■ 5,  6 

Nestos  (Tlirakien)  3,  16 

Pliarphar  (Colesyrien)  5,  C 

Rliyndakos  (Mysien)  5,  34 


Sabatus  (Samnium)  5,  5 

Sabatus  (Bruttiuip)  5,  5 

Sabbatikos  (Phonicien)  5,  5 

Semirus  (Bruttium)  5,  5 

Siris  (Lukanien)  5,  5 

Siris,  Name  des  Nil  z\v.  Syene  u.  Meroe  5,  5 

Strymon  (Thrakien  u.  Makedonien)  3,  16 

Meere  und  Meeresteile : , 

Adria  5,  2 

Propontis  5,  34 

Tyrrhenisches  Meer  5,  2 

Vada  Sabatia  (ligurischer  Hafen)  5,  5 

Seen : 

Askanischer  See  (Bitbynien)  5,  34,  2 


lacus  Sabate  oder  Sabatinus  (Etrurien)  5,  5.  6 


III.  Gottheiten,  Gestalten  der  Sage. 


Achilleus 

Adonis 

Agdistis 

Aineias 

Aktaion 

Amazonen 

Aige 

Elaia 

Epliesos 

Hippolyte 

Kyme 

Lykaste  oder  Lykastia 
Melanippe 
Myrina 
Penthesileia 
Pitane 
Smyrna 
Anchises 


2,  17 

4,  35 
4,  36 

5,  33.  34.  35.  37.  38 
7,  11 
2,  1 if.  5,  34 
2,  3.  7.  17 
2,  4 
2,  7.  17 
2,  14.  15.  16.  17 
2,  1.  2.  3.  5.  6 
2,  2.  17 
2,  14 
2,  3.  5.  6.  17 
2,  17 
2,  5.  17 
2,  3.  4.  7.  8-12.  17 
5,  35.  37 


Androklos,  Griinder  von  Ephesos  2,  12.  5,  32.  6,  9 
Andromeda  2,  2 

Ankaios,  Argonaut  5,  25.  32  f. 

Aphrodite  2,  25.  6,  6.  7,  11.  15.  30.  31.  35. 

8,  1.  7.  8.  9.  10 

lulia  als  Aphrodite  2,  25 

Aphrodite  von  Komama  (Pisidien)  8,  18  f. 

„ „ Olbasa  (Pisidien)  8,  19 

„ „ Phaselis  (Lykien)  8,  19 

„ „ Sillyon  (Pamphylien)  8,  19 

Aphrodite  Euploia  9,  43 

„ Morpho  4,  36 

„ Urania  8,  19.  24 

Apollo  Veiovis  6,  22 

Apollon  1,  7.  12.  13.  2,  19.  23.  27.  31,4.  3,  8. 


9.  21.  22.  25.  27—29.  4,  19,  i.  21.  5,  13.  14.  18. 

6,  6.  29.  7,  11.  12.  15.  25.  8,  2~6.  11.  14. 

9,  42,  4.  46  if.  10,  1.  2.  11.  12.  16.  12,  23. 

27.  28.  30 

Apollon  von  Attuda  (Phrygien)  8,  2,  i 

„ „ Sinope  (Paphlagonien)  8,  2,  i 

Apollon  Akesios  8,  24 

„ Chresterios  8,  2,  i 

„ Didymeus  8,  2,  i.  4 

„ Lykeios  8,  2,  i 

„ Smintheus  6,  31.  8,  2,  i 

„ Tarseus  8,  2,  i 

Ares  2,  9.  18.  6,  15.  10,  18 

Arethusa  4,  24.  25.  7,  30.  9,40,2.43.  11,10,2 
Argos,  Erbauer  der  Argo  5,  25.  28 

Artemis  2,  6.  13.  26.  27.  31,4.  3,  21.  5,  31. 

6,  7.  14.  23.  7,  29.  8,  1.  7.  10.  11.  17. 

Artemis  von  Abydos  (Troas) 

„ „ Anemurion  (Kilikien) 

„ „ Hyllarima  (Karien) 

„ „ Kidramos  (Karien) 

„ „ Kyme  (Aiolis) 

„ „ Miletos  (lonien) 

„ „ Rhodes  (Insel  hei  Karien) 

„ „ Sebastopolis  (Karien) 

. 6,  6. 


Artemis  Ana'itis 
„ Astias 


Astyrene 
Eleuthera 
Ephesia  2,  6. 

6,  4.  5.  6. 
Kindyas 
Klaria 


10,  12 
8,  2f. 
8,  1 
8,  7 
8,  8f. 
8,  13 
8,  4 
8,  9 if. 
8,  6f. 
8,  1.  12.f. 
8,  7.  11 
8,  1 
8,  6,2 

7.  15.  18.  23.  26.  5,  13. 
11.  8,  1.  3.  4.  7.  13.  14 
8,  5 f.  7 
8,  4 


Register  zu  Nomisma  1 — XII. 


39 


Artemis  Kyparissia 
„ Leukophrys 

„ Panionios 

„ Pergaia 
Askanios 


8, 


8,  3 
1.  4.  11 
8,  3.  4 
8,  1 
5,  35.  37 


Asklepios  2, 11.  19  ff.  4,  29.  32.  8,  12.  10, 15.  24.  27 
Claudius  (oder  Nero?)  als  Asklepios  2,  25 
Hadrianus  (?)  als  Asklepios  2,  25 

M.  Aurelius  als  Asklepios  2,  25.  26 

Asklepios  Soter  2,  31.  32 

Assur,  Nationalgott  Assyriens  5,  5 

Astarte  4,  35.  8,  19.  21 

Athamas,  Griinder  von  Teos  5,  25.  32 

Athena  Ij  7.  12.  2,  19.20,1.  3,  20.  4,  2.  4.  12. 
5,  14.  18.  27.  28.  6,  7.  13.  14.  19.  7,  6.  11. 

12.  14.  22—25.  31.  8,  1.  7.  12. 16.  24.  9,  48, 2.  49. 
10,  4.  5.  11.  15.  16.  19.  24.  12,  5.  6.  8.  9.  lOff, 


15  £f.  23.  24.  25.  30 


Athena  lasonia  6,  21 

„ llias  2,  20, 1 

„ Nike  1,  21.  6,  14 

„ Nikephoros  9,  49 

„ Panthea  6,  21 

„ Polias  Nikephoros  10,  11 

„ Tyche  6,  21 


Attis  4,  33  ff.  7,  11.  8,  17.  18.  9,  36.  38.  40. 

10,  23.  24 


Baal  Zebub 

Bateia,  Gattin  des  Dardanos 
Boreaden 


9,  10,4 
5,  32 
7,  28 


Charybdis 

Chryse,  Gattin  des  Dardanos 
Chryse,  Nymphe 


5,  5 
5,  32 

6,  7 


Demeter  1,  5.  6.  7.  12.  13.  2,  13.  25,3.  31,4. 
5,  26.  7,  11.  14.  15.  31.  8,  4.  7.  11.  10,  15. 


16.  17.  18.  19.  23.  24.  25.  27 


Livia  als  Demeter 
Demeter  Horia 
Diana 
Dido 


2,  25,3 
2,  8 
8,  17 

5,  25.  37.  38.  39 


Diomedes  11,  13 

Dionysos  1,  7.  12.  2,  6.  3,  19.  20.  21.  5,  20. 

6,  1.  13.  7,  11.  12.  15.  30.  8,  2.  7.  17.  24. 

10,  23.  25.  12,  31 

Dionysos  Katbegemon  ' 2,  32 

Dioskuren  8,  15.  10,  24 


Enyalios 

Enyo 

Erichthonios 


4,  36 
6,  14,1 
7,  12.  21 


Eros  7,  15.  10, 

16.  24.  25 

Eroten  6.  6. 

8,  10.  19 

Esar,  hebraisch  fur  Assur 

5,  5 

Europa 

7,  9.  26 

Eurymedosa,  Nymphe 

6,  7 

FluBgotter : 

Eudonos 

6,  3.  4 

Hermos 

6,  2.  3.  4 

Kapros 

5,  33 

Kaystros 

2,  23 

Kenchreios 

2,  23 

Keteios 

2,  23.  24 

Kladeos 

4,  21 

Lykos 

5,  33 

Maiandros 

6,  3.-4 

Neilos 

6,  4, 1 

Paktolos 

6,  2.  3.  4 

Peneios 

6,  4 

Rhyndakos 

6,  3.  4 

Seleinus 

2,  23.  24 

Titaresios 

6,  4 

s.  auch  2,  14  (ohne  Namen)  und  Mannstier 

Gaia  (Ge)  6,  7. 

7,  12.  15 

Ganymedes  2,  39. 

40.  5,  35 

Geryoneus 

7,  19 

Hades  8,  24. 

10,  23.  27 

Halia,  Tochter  des  Sybaris  (Parion) 

6,  7 

Harpyien  7, 

, 3.  20.  28 

Hekate  8,  1 

. 7.  14.  15 

Hekate  von  Bruzos  (Phrygien) 

8,  20 

„ „ Dionysopolis  (Phrygien) 

8,  15 

„ „ Elaiusa  Sebaste  (Kilikien) 

8,  19  f. 

„ „ Kibyra  (Phrygien),  0sa  UiaiSiKt]  2,  15. 

8,  15  f. 

„ „ Lamijsakos  (Mysien)  8,  14.  12,  31 

„ „ Maionia  (Lydien) 

8,  13 

„ „ Philadelpheia  (Lydien) 

8,  13  f. 

„ „ Sebastopolis  (Karien) 

8,  15 

„ „ Thyateira  (Lydien) 

8,  14 

Hekate  Selene 

8,  15.  20 

Hektor  5,  25.  26.  32.  34  f. 

Plelios  4,  24,2.  7,  11.  8, 

9.  10.  15 

Helios  u.  Hekate  als  Gsoi  UiGidiKol 

8,  15 

Helios  Hermanubis 

6,  18 

Hephaistos  5, 

4.  10,  19 

Hera  2,  25.  4,  36.  8,  1.  4.  7.  10,2.  11.  11,  1ft’. 

Livia  als  Hera 

2,  25 

Hera  von  Argos  11,  12. 

13, 1.  35, 1 

„ „ Samos  6,  5.  6.  8,  1.  5.  17 

Hera  Telchinia 

8,  10 

6* 


40 


Register  zu  Nomisma  I— XII. 


Ilerakles  2,  2.  12.  14—18.  3,  7.  21.  4,  2.  3.  4. 
5,  13.  7,  6.  8.  11.  12.  14.  15.  19.  32.  8,  7.  24,  3. 

9,  10.  10,  16.  24.  25 
Hermes  1,  5.  6.  7.  12.  13.  2,  23.  3,  19.  20.  27.  28. 
4,  16  ff.  7,  14.  15.  23,1.  9,  37.  10,  13.  15 


Hermes  Helios  8,  7 

Hygieia  1,24.25.  2,20.24.25.  6,14.  10,24.27 
Livia  als  Hygieia  2,  25 

Sabina  als  Hygieia  2,  25,  i 

Faustina  iunior  als  Hygieia  2,  25 


lanus 

Ipbikles,  Bruder  des  Herakles 
Isis 

luno  Pronuba 
lupiter  Baccbiis 


12,  7 


7,  15 


6,  14.  8,  11 
8,  1,  2.  4.  7.  16.  18 
6,  14 


Kabir  7,  11.  12.  14.  9,  41 

Kadmos  5,  25.  33,  i.  35,  5.  36.  37 

Kaiser  oder  Kaiserinnen  mit  Gottheiten  identifi- 
ziert  2,  25.  4,  33 

Kekrops  7,  12 

Kentaur  2,  22.  26.  7,  10.  13.  10,  24 

Kore  5,  10.  18.  7,  14.  34.  8,  1.  4.  9,  51. 

10,  6ff.  11.  13.  14.  27 
Kore  von  Lydien  8,  3.  20  f. 

„ „ Tbemisoniou  (Phrygien)  8,  22 

Kore  Soteira  9,  42.  44.  45.  46  ff.  10,  Iff.  23  ff. 

Faustina  iun.  als  Kore  Soteira  4,  33.  40.  10,  29 
Kybele  2,  13.  14.  4,  35.  36, 3.  39.  41.  7,  15. 

8,  1.  14.  17.  18 

Kybele  von  Dokimeion  (Phrygien)  8,  18 

„ „ Klazomenai  (lonien)  8,  18 

„ „ Pergamou  (Mysien)  8,  16  f. 


Nemesis  6,  13.  14.  8,  10.  11 

Nemesis  von  Rhamnus  8,  10,  i 

Nereide  7,  12.  33 

Nikaia,  Nymphe  6,  1 

Nike  1,  21.  2,  2.  7.  9.  13.  18.  4,  2.  6,  13. 
7,  9.  12.  26.  33.  8,  9.  11.  16.  17.  19.  30.  31. 

34.  35—40.  42.  43—47.  49—56.  58.  60.  61.  63.  64. 

10,  23.  29 

Nymphe  2,5.  6,12.13.  7,  23,  i.  11,13,3.  12,  7 

Olympia,  Nymphe  9,  16.  19.  20,  i.  21.  11,  26.  28 
Orestes  1,  21.  7,  13 


Pan  7,  14.  31.  10,  24 

Pantheistische  Gotterbilder  5,  15.  6,  13  ff.  10,  19 
Peirene,  Nymphe  6,  12 

Peleus  7,  9.  26 

Persephone  4,  25.  6,  7.  8,  4 

Perseus  5,  14.  15.  7,  6.  12.  23.  28 

Personifikationen : 

Landschaft  Troas  2,  11 

Provinz  Asia  2,  11 

Eirene  6,  14 

Eleutheria  7,  16.  21.  32.  33 

Phohos  7,  10.  20 

Plutos  6,  3.  4, 1 

Spes  6,  19 

s.  auch  Tyche 

Poseidon  3,  28.  5,  13,  i.  6,  15.  7,  11.  14.  31. 

8,  4.  12.  9,  30.  10,  11.  15.  16.  17.  12,  10,  i 
Priamos  5,  34 

Priapos  8,  14.  12,  30.  31 

Protesilaos  5,  25.  26 

Pygmalion,  Bruder  der  Dido  5,  39 


Lapithe 

7,  13 

Larissa,  Nymphe 

4,  24.  6,  13, 1.  12,  9,  5 

Leukothea,  Nymphe 

6,  2.  4 

Ma 

4,  35.  6,  14,  1 

Magna  Mater 

4,  40.  41 

Mainade 

6,  13.  7,  14.  31.  10,  24. 

Makaria,  Nymphe 

7,  30 

Mannstier 

7,  10.  13 

Marsyas 

5,  37 

Medusa 

5,  35 

Melaina,  Nymphe 

12,  10,1 

Meleagros 

5,  32 

Men 

4,  36,  3 

Meter  Megalc 

4,  41 

Mithras 

4,  39.  8,  20, 1 

Mygdon,  Phrygerkiinig 

5,  25.  34.  35 

Myiagros 

9,  10 

Rhea  Lobrine 

4,  35 

Roma 

2,  5.  31.  32 

Sabazios 

2,  13.  4,  35 

Salus 

2,  25 

Samas,  Sonnengott  Babyloniens  5,  7 

Sarapis 

6,  6.  14.  17.  18 

Sarapis  Helios 

6,  18 

Sarapis  Pantheos 

6,  17 

Satyr 

6,  12.  13.  7,  14.  31 

Selene 

6,  14 

Sileu  3,  17.  7,  7. 

10.  13.  23,  1.  24.  12,  7 

Sirene 

7,  7 

Siris,  altbabylonische  Gottheit  5,  6 

Skylla 

5,  5.  7,  13.  8,  56,  a 

Sol  Neptunus  Mercurius 

6,  23 

Sozon 

2,  13 

Sphinx  2,  15.  7,  6. 

7.  10.  16.  10,  7.  8.  12 

Register  zu  Nomisma  I — XII. 


41 


Stadtgottin  (Tyche)  von 


Aigai  (Aiolis) 

2,  3 

Amastris  (Paphlagonien) 

2,  5 

Amisos  (PontoS) 

2,  5 

Ankyra  (Phrygien) 

2,  12 

Ephesos  (lonien) 

2,  15 

Kibyra  (Phrygien) 

2,  14,1 

Kyme  (Aiolis) 

2,  6 

Kyzikos  (Mysien) 

10,  24 

Mytilene  (Lesbos) 

8,  16 

Nikomedeia  (Bithynien) 

2,  11 

Pergamon  (Mysien) 

2,  11.  24 

Perinthos  (Thrakien) 

2,  10 

Philadelpheia  (Lydien) 

2,  12 

Pitane  (Mysien) 

2,  3 

Sidon  (Phonicien) 

5,  36 

Smyrna  (lonien) 

2,  4.  10,  24 

Temnos  (Aiolis) 

2,  3 

Thyateira  (Lydien) 

2,  12 

Tralleis  (Lydien) 

2,  12 

s.  auch  Roma 
Stadtheroen,  eponyme: 

Abydos 

5,  25.  29  f. 

Byzas 

5,  25 

Dardanos 

5,  25.  31 

Delphos 

12,  10, 1 

Erythros 

6,  1 

Kyzikos  6,  21.  10, 

15.  20.  22.  23.  24.  25 

Miletos 

5,  25.  29 

Otreus,  Phrygerkonig 

5,  25.  34.  35 

Pergamos 

2,  40 

Prusias,  Bithynierkonig 

6,  9 

Sidon 

5,  25.  36 

s.  auch  Thebe  sowie  die 

eponymen  Nymphen 

Larissa  und  Nikaia 

Telesphoros  2,  24.  6,  10. 

8,  4.  15.  10,  13.  24 

Thea  Pisidike 

2,  15.  8,  15 

Thebe,  Gattin  des  Herakles 

5,  10 

Theoi  Pisidikoi 

8,  15 

Theseus 

Thetis 

Triptoleraos 

Triton  7, 

Tyche  6,  2.  13.  14. 

Tyche  Nemesis 
Tyche  Nike 
Tyche  Panthea 
s.  auch  Stadtgottin 


2,  17.  4,  21 
7,  9.  26 
7,  12 

7.  10.  10,  17.  26 

8,  11.  21.  10,  27 

6,  14.  20 

6,  14.  19.  20 

6,  19.  20.  21 


Vacuna,  Gottin  der  Sabiner  6,  22 

Victoria  6,  22 

Victoria  Fortuna  6,  18 

Victoria  Nemesis  6,  18 

Victoria  Nemesis  Pax  6,  22  f. 

Victoria  Panthea  6,  18 


Zenoposeidon  6,  14.  15 

Zeus  2,  21.  23.  30.  31.  33.  4,  2.  3.  39.  5,  10—14. 
16.  17.  19.  6,  7.  8.  15.  16.  7,  11.  14.  31.  8,  2. 
7.  12.  17.  24.  25,1.  35.  41.  43.  48  f.  54.  57. 
9,  2.  10.  14.  16—21.  22.  23.  25—32.  49.  10,  15. 
, 16.  17.  11,  11.  12.  32,1.  33.  12,  26 


Zeus  Akraios 
„ Ammon 
„ Apomyios 
„ Asklepios 
„ Askraios 
„ Chrysaorios 
„ Dodonaios 
„ Euromeus 
„ Helios 
„ Karios 
„ Labrandeus 
„ Laodikenos 
„ Myiagros  oder  Myiodes 
„ Osogoa 
„ Tanhellenios 
„ Philios 
,,  Stratios 


2,  8.  10 
7,  11.  14.  31.  8,  11 
9,  10.  11,  33 
2,  33 
6,  16 
6,  15,  3 
9,  22.  30 
6,  15,2 
6,  16 
6,  15.  16 
2,  17,2.  6,  15.  16 
6,  11 
9,  10 
6,  15.  16 
8,25,1.  11,31 
2,  31.  32 
6,  15.  16 


IV,  a.  Konige,  Dynasten,  Satrapen, 


Adramys,  Sohn  des  Sadyattes  von  Lydien  5,  13,  i 
Agathokles,  Tyrann  von  Syrakus  1,  19.  6,  14 
Agis,  Konig  von  Sparta  9,  14 

Aiantides,  Sohn  des  Tyrannen  Hippoklos  12,  12.  13 
Aleuaden  in  Thessalien  12,  9,5 

Alexandros,  Konig  von  Epeiros  9,  22.  23 

Alexandros  I.  von  Makedonien  3,  14.  15.  16.  18.  19 
„ III.  der  GroBe  1,  8.  4,  13.  14.  5,  10. 

6,  27.  7,  32.  33.  8,  26.  9,  15,  3.  49.  50. 

11,  31.  12,  26.  28 


Alexandros  IV.  von  Makedonien  4,  9 

Antigonos,  Konig  von  Asien  1,8.  9,  28.  12,  26 
Antigonos  Gonatas  3,  28.  8,  12,  i.  9,  30 

Antiochos  I.  von  Syrien  4,  4.  6.  9,  48,  i.  50,  2. 

12,  26 

„ II.  „ „ 3,  28.  29.  4,  4.  5,  24. 

6,  27.  9,  50,  2.  12,  26.  27 
„ 1±  „ „ 1,  4.  11.  4,  31.  5,  24. 

6,  27.  28.  8,  6.  9,  52.  12,  32 
6,  27.  12,  26.  27.  32 


Antiochos  Hierax 


42 


Register  zu  Nomisma  I — XII. 


Antonia  Tryphaina,  Gemahlin  des  Kotys  10,  11 
Archedike,  Tochter  des  Tyrannen  Hippias  12,  12 


1,  4. 


Archelaos  I.  von  Makedonien 
Ariobarzanes,  Satrap  1 , 

Aristotimos,  Tyrann  von  Elis 
Artabazos,  Satrap 
Artaxerxes  I.  von  Persien 

n » )) 

„ ni.  „ „ 

Astyanax,  Tyrann  von  Lampsakos 
Attains  I.  von  Pergamon  1,  4.  6,  27. 

„ If.  „ 

n III-  ))  » 

Dareios  I.  von  Persien 
Demetrios  I.  von  Makedonien 
Denietrios  II.  von  Syrien 
Dionysios,  Tyrann  von  Syrakus 
Duketios,  Fiirst  der  Sikeler 
Eumenes  I.  von  Pergamon 

„ II.  „ „ 1,  5.  2,  19.21.28.  4,  31. 

5,  17.  24.  6,  28.  12,  32 
Getas,  Konig  der  Edonen  3,  15 

Hekataios,  Tyrann  von  Kardia 
Hipparcbos,  Tyrann  von  Athen 
Hippias,  Tyrann  von  Athen  12,  4.  9 
Hippoklos,  Tyrann  von  Lampsakos  12,  9 
Kersobleptes,  Fiirst  der  Odrysen 
Kroisos,  Konig  von  Lydien 
Kyros,  Konig  von  Persien 
Lysimachos,  Konig  von  Thrakien 

4,  30.  6,  27.  9,  49.  50. 

Maussollos,  Satrap 


4,  21,2 
10.  12,  26 
9,  27.  31 

5,  12 
12,  20 
12,  24 
12,  24 
12,  26 

12,  27.  32 
1,  4 
2,  31 
12,  13 
12,  26 

6,  14 

4,  25 
9,  40,  2 

5,  24 


16.  18 
1,  8 
12,  9 
10.  12 
12.  13 
8.  10 
6,  9 
6,  9 
1,  8.  9.  11. 
12,  26.  29,  2 
12,  27 


1, 


Memnon,  Hyparch  in  Lampsakos  12,  26.  27.  28 
Mithradates  I.  Ktistes,  Konig  von  Pontos  5,  15 
„ IV.  Philopator  Philadelphos  5,  15 
„ VI.  Eupator  5,  14.  15.  20 

Olympias,  Mutter  Alexanders  des  Grofien  6,  8 
Orontas,  Satrap  5,  10.  11.  12.  12,  24.  27.  28,  i 
Pharnabazos,  Satrap  9,  44 

Pharnakes  I.,  Konig  von  Pontos  1,  5.  5,  15.  6,  14 
Philetairos,  Dynast  von  Pergamon  2,  20 

Philippos  II.  von  Makedonien  1,  8.  3,  22.  4,  25. 

7,  1.  32.  9,  21.  24.  12,  28 
„ III.  von  Makedonien  4,  6.  7,  i.  9. 10. 13.  14 
„ V.  „ „ 1,4.  11.  4,31.  8,3 

Philiskos,  Tyrann  von  Lampsakos  12,  26.  27 
Pixodaros,  Satrap  12,  27 

Polykrates,  Tyrann  von  Samos  9,  40 

Prusias  I.  von  Bithynien  6,  8.  9,  10.  14 


!)  _ II-  !)  n 

Ptolemaios,  Neffe  des  Antigonos 
Ptolemaios  I.  von  Aigypten 

Pyrrhos,  Konig  von  Epeiros 
Seleukos  II.  von  Syrien 

„ III-  „ „ 

Semiramis,  Konigm  von  Assyrien 
Sitalkes,  Konig  der  Odrysen  3, 
Spithridates,  Satrap 
Thrasyhulos,  Tyrann  von  Syrakus 
Xerxes,  Konig  von  Persien 


III.  „ 

IV.  „ 


2,  21 
9,  28 
8,  12, 1 
3,  28.  4,  10 
3,  28.  8,  11 
8,  12 
11,  34,1 
9,  30.  31 

6,  27.  12,  32 

4,  4 

5,  6 

22.  23.  4,  22 
9,  44 

7,  30.  9,  40,  2 
7,  26.  9,  38 


b.  Staatsmanner,  Peldherren,  Beamte. 


Agesilaos  (Sparta)  9,  44 

Alkibiades  (Athen)  - 7,  .33.  9,  44 

Antiadas,  Miinzbeamter  in  Ainos  4,  18 

Antipatros,  Statthalter  in  Makedonien  1,  8. 

9,  27.  28.  11,39,1 
Brasidas  (Sparta)  4,  24 

Chabrias  (Athen)  3,  22 

Chares  (Athen)  1,  8.  11.  5,  12 

Daurises  (Persien)  12,  4.  13 

Uerkylidas  (Sparta)  1,  10 

Diotrephes  (Athen)  4,  18 

Eumenes  (Makedonien)  1,  8 

Fabius,  Q.,  Praetor  und  Flottenfiihrer  4,  31 

Hannibal  (Carthago)  6,  9,  3 

Hybreas,  ygccfiiiuTevg  in  Mylasa  1,  2.  3 

Kentauros,  ffrparrjyos  in  Thyateira  8,  14.  15 
Kimon  (Athen)  12,  iS.  20 

Klearchos  (Sparta)  9,  44 


Konon  (Athen)  5,  13.  7,  33.  9,  45.  12,  21 
Leonnatos  (Makedonien)  1,  8 

Livius,  C.,  Praetor  und  Flottenfiihrer  1,  11 

Lucullus,  L.  Licinius,  Ponticus  5,  25.  31 

Lysandros  (Sparta)  1,  10.  9,  44.  12,  21 

Menas,  Sohn  des  Menes,  in  Sestos  1,  Iff. 

Mindaros  (Sparta)  1,  8.  10.  9,  44 

Proconsules  der  Provinz  Asia ; 

T.  Clodius  Eprius  Marcellus  (70 — 73)  2,  5 

L.  Mestrius  Floras  (83 — 84)  2,  8 

Sex.  lulius  Frontinus  (unter  Domitianus)  2,  8 
P.  Calvisius  Huso  (unter  Domitianus)  2,  7 

L.  lunius  Caesennius  Paetus  (unter  Domitianus) 

2, -7 

Promethion,  Sohn  des  Lampon  (Lampsakos)  12,  31 
Scipio,  P.  Cornelius,  Africanus  (raaior)  6,  7 
GtQatr\yoi  in  Kyzikos ; 

’AnoXXcoviSrig,  ’AaY.X'qnidd'qg  10,  22 


Register  zu  Nomisma  I — XII. 


43 


[atQatriyaC  in  Kyzikos] 

Aig.  ’Agiarsidris,  Avg.  Eosatgurog  10,  22 

'Egiioluog  10,  30 

Kgu.  BaaiXsvg  10,  22 

Aoyi.  Esprjgog  10,  22.  30 

Tag.  A.  IIav}.og  10,  22 


Strombichides  (Athen)  12,  21 

Telesphoros,  Feldherr  des  Antigonos  9,  28 

Themistokles  (Athen)  5,  25.  27.  12,  20.  21.  22 
Thrasybulos  (Atlien)  3,  21.  22 

Timotbeos,  Sobn  des  Konon  (Athen)  1, 10.  7,  32.  33. 

9,45 


c-  Sonstige  Personlichkeiten. 


Anacharsis,  Skythe 

4,  35.  41 

Eupolis,  Komodiendichter 

7,  1 

Antinoos 

6,  10 

Harmodios,  Tyrannenmorder 

7,  9 

Apollophanes,  Kyzikener 

9,  44 

Hekataios,  Abderite 

3,  24 

Aristogeiton,  Tyrannenmorder 

7,  9 

Herodotos,  Bruder  des  Demokritos 

3,  24 

Artemon,  Vater  des  Protagoras 

3,  24 

Idomeneus  (Lampsakos),  Schuler  Epikurs 

12,  28 

Bildende  Kiinstler: 

Leonteus  (Lampsakos),  Schuler  Epikurs 

12,  28 

Antenor 

7,  26 

Libon,  Baumeister 

8,  25,1 

Archermos 

7,  19.  26 

Metrodoros  (Lampsakos),  Schuler  Epikurs 

12,  28 

Aristonus 

8,  41 

Nymphodoros,  Abderite  3, 

22.  23 

Daidalos  von  Sikyon 

8,  64 

9,  10,5 

Polyphantes,  Pythes,  Python,  Abderiten 

3,  24 

Kritios 

7,  26.  27 

Semirah,  Hebraer 

5,  5 

Nesiotes 

7,  26.  27 

Stempelschneider ; 

Nikeratos 

2,  24,2 

Euainetos  (Syrakus)  4, 25.  9, 43.  44.  55. 

11,  13,3 

Pheidias  4,  23. 

8,  24. 

11,  32, 1 

Kimon  (Syrakus)  4,24.25.  9,43.  11,28,2 

Phyromachos 

2,  19  ff. 

Phrygillos  (Syrakus)  1,  20.  9, 

44.  54 

Polyklet 

11,  35, 1 

Prokles  (Naxos  auf  Sicilien) 

3,  23 

Polyklet  der  jiingere 

11,  16 

Vasenfabrikanten : 

Polymnestos 

11,  16,2 

Amasis 

3,  17 

Praxiteles 

3,  21, 

1.  8,  24 

Chachrylion  7, 

19.26 

Thrasymedes 

2,  21.  29 

Vasenmaler : 

Demokritos,  Philosoph 

3,  23.  24 

Duris  1,  21.  4, 

19.  20 

Epicharinos,  Hoplitodromos 

7,  27 

Euphronios  4,  19.  20.  7,  19. 

12,  11 

Epikuros,  Philosoph 

12,  28 

Onesimos 

4,  19 

V.  Geschichtliches. 


Achaischer  Bund  9,  30.  31.  32 

Athenischer  (delisch-attischer)  Seebund  4,  22. 

7,  35.  9,  41.  42,  2.  44.  12,  13.  20.  22 
Athenischer  Seebund,  zweiter  9,  44, 2.  45.  46. 

12,  27 

Atolischer  Bund  9,  32 

Errichtung  der  Provinz  Asia  5,  20.  21.  22.  24. 


6,  28.  12,  32 

Frieden  des  Antalkidas  (387)  12,  21 

„ „ Nikias  (421)  8,  60,  i.  65.  9,  13. 

11,  12 

Gordianus  III.  anwesend  in  Beroia  1,  24 

Griindung  der  Stadt  Elis  (471)  8,  23.  43 

„ yon  Hadrianotherai  (123  n.  Chr.)  6,  10 
lonischer  Aufstand  12,  5.  13.  22 

Kyzikos  durch  Timotbeos  von  persischer  Belage- 
rung  befreit  (363)  7,  33.  9,  45 

Olympia’s  Bedeutung  im  Abnehmen  9,  25 


Olympia’s  Besetzung  durch  die  Arkader  8,  25. 

9,  14.  15.  11,  18 
„ „ durch  Telesphoros  9,  28 

Peloponnesischer  Krieg  8,  59.  60,  i.  65.  12,  21 
Philippus  (Kaiser)  anwesend  in  Beroia  1,  25.  27 
Schlacht  am  Eurymedon  (465)  12,  13.  20 

„ „ Granikos  (334)  7,  32.  33 

„ bei  Aigospotamoi  (405)  1,  10.  9,  44 

„ „ Knidos  (394)  5,  13.  7,  33.  9,  45. 

12,  21 

„ „ Kos  (ca.  260)  3,  28 

„ „ Kynossema  (411)  9,  44 

„ „ Magnesia  (190)  1,  11.  6,  28.  8,  6. 

9,  52.  12,  32 

„ „ Marathon  (490)  12,  10 

„ „ My  kale  (479)  12,  20 

„ „ Sardeis  (262/1)  5,  24 

Sicilische  Expedition  4,  25.  9,  41.  44.  12,  21 


44 


Register  zu  Nomisma  I— XII. 

VI.  Kunstwerke. 


Aginetische  Tempelskulpturen  12,  11 

Zugreifender  des  Ostgiebels  4,  20 

Aphrodite,  mediceische  8,  19 

Apollon  auf  dem  Omphalos  4,  19,  i 

Apollonstatuen,  archaische,  sogen.  6,  31.  7,  25 

Asklepios  des  Phyromachos  in  Pergamon  2,  19  ff. 

„ des  Thrasymedes  in  Epidauros  2,  21.  29 
Attis,  gelagerter,  im  Lateran  4,  37.  38 

Dornauszieher,  kapitolinischer  11,  9 

Ephehenkopf  („hlonder“)  von  der  Akropolis  4,  20. 

12,  11 

Epicharinosstatue  von  Kritios  u.  Nesiotes  7,  27 

Euthydikosstatue  v.  d.  Akropolis  4,  20.  12,  11 

Gorgoneion,  archaisches,  v.  d.  Akropolis  12,  7,  i 
Jiinglingskopf  auf  dem  Diskos  7,  23 


Kalathiskostanzerinnen,  Reliefs  in  Berlin  3,  21 
Madchenfiguren  v.  d.  Akropolis  7,  23.  25.  12,  11 
Nike  des  Archermos  7,  19.  26.  8,  34,  2 

Nikehalustrade,  Reliefs  der  1,  21 

Sandalenhinderin  1,  21 

Nil,  gelagerter,  im  Vatikan  6,  4,  i 

Olympische  Giehelskulpturen  4,  21.  7,  31.  8,  55 
Apollon,  Kladeos  u.  sogen.  Theseus  4,  21 
Parthenonskulpturen  3,  20.  21.  4,  21.  22.  23.  7,  31 
Thallophor,  hartiger,  des  Frieses  4,  22 

Phineusschale  in  Wiirzhurg  7,  28 

Relief  mit  Dromokeryx  7,  26 

„ mit  zwei  Palladien  7,  24 

Typhon  des  Hekafompedon-Giehels  7,  23 

Tyrannenmordergruppe  (Neapel)  7,  26.27,  12,  11 


VII.  Sonstiges. 


Aedicula  als  Kopfschmuck  6,  11 

Aera  von  333/2  vor  Chr.  in  Ake  4,  12.  14 

„ in  Arados  4, 4. 5. 9. 10. 14 

„ in  Sidon  4,  9.  10.  14 

„ in  Tyros  4,  13.  14 

Aera  von  312/11  vor  Chr.  (seleukidische)  6,  27 

„ von  134/3  vor  (?lir.  der  Provinz  Asia  5,  21 

„ von  32/31  vor  Chr.  (aktische)  1,  25 

Aera,  stadtische,  von 

Alexandreia  Troas  (300  vor  Chr.)  6,  27 

Arados  (259  vor  Chr.)  4,  4.  5.  15 

Sidon  (111  vor  Chr.)  5,  36 

Agalma  Attalos’  III.  in  Elaia  2,  31 

Agonotheten  mit  Preiskronen  5,  42 

ahriaanEvov  auf  Miinzen  1,  3 

Alexandergeld  1,  4,  i.  4,  Iff.  9,49.52.  12,  28f. 


Statere 

Tetradrachmen 


Drachmen 
Altis  in  Olympia 


7,  32.  9,  15,3.  12,  29.  30 
(1,  4,1),  9,  28.  49.  50,2. 
11,  31.  38.  12,  29.  32 
12,  29 

8,  23.  24.  25.  60.  9,  15 
Archaisieren  in  der  Munzpragung  von 

12,  17  f. 
7,  32 
12,  17.  18 
12,  17  f. 
26.  27.  28 
5,  28  f.  32 
6,  7 
-41.  6,  2 

Autonomie-Verleihung  seitens  Pergamons  1,  4 
„ -Belassung  durch  Lysimachos  1,11.  4,30 

5,  7 


Ahdera  3,  7.  7,  32. 

9,  55  f. 

Kyzikos 

Lampsakos 

Terina  1,  19.  7,  32. 

9,  55  f. 

Argo,  Schiff 

5, 

Argonautenfahrt 

Astragalomanteia 

Athleten  mit  Preiskronen 

5,  39- 

Bar  (oder  sein  Kopf)  auf  Miinzen  6,  10,  2.  7,  4 
Bauwerke : 

Aphaiatempel  in  Aigina  4,  20 

Artemision  in  Ephesos  2,  29,  2.  8,  3 

Asklepieion  in  Pergamon  2,  21.  24.  31.  32.  33 
Hekatompedon  auf  der  Akropolis  7,  23 

lonischer  Tempel,  sog  , in  Pergamon  2,  30 — 33.  35 
Metroon  in  Ostia  4,  37.  38 

Neokorietempel,  die  3 in  Pergamon  2,  30 
Nikephorion  in  Pergamon  2,  21,  i.  32 

Panionion  hei  Mykale  8,  4 

Parthenon  auf  der  Akropolis  4,  22 

Philippeion  in  Olympia  9,  24 

Tempel  Esara  in  der  Stadt  Assur  5,  5 

Traianeum  in  Pergamon  2,  31 

Zeusaltar  in  Olympia  8,  25,  i 

Zeustempel  in  Olympia  3,  20.  4,  22.  8,  25,  i.  55 
Beizeichen,  hemerkenswerte: 

Ooppelaxt  (Ainos)  4,  17 

Kaninchen  (Lampsakos)  12,  17.  23 

Krahhe  (Terina),  „Hoheitszeichen  der  Brettier“ 

1,  19 

Negerkopf  (Ahdera)  3,  17 

Pan  DinoayioTt&v  (Ainos)  4,  17 

Silen  tanzend  (Ahdera)  3,  17 

Triskelis  (Terina),  Symbol  des  Agatliokles  1,  19 
Vogel,  angebl.  qiQvyiXog  (Thurioi)  1,  20 

s.  auch  unter:  Olympia’s  Tempelmiinzen 
Binde  mit  emporstehenden  Enden  1,  6 

Buckellockchenfrisur  7,  25,  i 

Cistophoren  5,  17.  20 — 23.  6,  29 

Contermarken,  s.  Gegenstempel 


Babylonische  Herkunft  von  Romernamen 


Register  zu  Nomisma  I — XII. 


45 


Dareiken 

7,  1 

Smyrna  und  Thyateira 

2,  12 

Dekadraclimen,  athenische  12, 

10. 

11.  12 

„ „ Tralleis 

2,  12 

Demareteion 

12,  10 

„ „ Troas  (Landschaft) 

2,  11 

Dendrophorie 

4,  42 

Thyateira  und  Smyrna 

2,  4.  12 

Doppelaxt  (nels^vs)  der  Amazonen 

2,  17 

Hoplitodromos  1 

, 18.  26.  27 

Doppelkopfe 

12,  7 

Doppelsphinx 

7,  10 

lonischer  Ohrschmuck 

12,  7.  8.  20 

Dorischer  Dialekt  sporadisch  in  Sestos 

1, 

10.  11 

Jiinglingskopf  auf  Diskos  (Kyzikos)  7,  8.  23.  12,  14 

Dromokeryx 

7,  26 

Kaiser  als  •S’fog  avwaog 

2,  31 

Emissionszahlen  in  Sestos 

1,  12 

Kanephore 

8,  15  f. 

imfislrj&^VTOs  auf  Miinzen 

1,  2 

Kerberos,  zweikopfiger 

7,  8 

inifislriTcd  x&v  Jiovvaioov  u.  t&v 

1.2,2 

Knielauf,  archaischer 

7,  19 

„ TCOV  flVGTTjQlCOV 

1,2,2 

Knochelspiel  vor  Kultbildern 

6,  4—7.  23 

imftfirjTrjg  t&v  nuva%"i]vcU(ov  (vielmehr  snifiilTiTrjg 

Kult  der  Faustina  iunior  in  Pergamon  2,  25 

itdvTcov)  in  Mastaura 

1,  2 

Kupferbergbau  der  Phonicier 

5,  4 

Kyprischer  Ohrschmuck  12 

7.  8.  9.  20 

FluBgotter  mit  Kindern 

6,  2ff. 

Fund  (Miinzen)  am  Berge  Athos 

12,  10,3 

Lederkappe  unter  dem  korinthischen  Helm  der 

„ „ auf  der  Akropolis 

12,  10,3 

Athena 

12,  15.  19 

„ „ von  Kyparissia  (Messenien) 

11,  38 

Liknophoros 

8,  16 

„ „ von  Orchomenos  (Boiotien)  1 1 , 37  ff. 

Lysimachosmiinzen  1,  4,  i.  9,  49.  52 

„ „ von  Saida  (Sidon) 

4,  6 

Tetradrachmen  (1,  4,  i).  9,  49.  50.  12,  29,2 

Drachmen 

12,  29,  2 

Gegenstempel  in  Abdera 

3,  27 

„ in  Kyzikos 

10,  7 

Makedonische  Provinzialpragung 

1,  14.  23  tf. 

„ in  Olympia 

8,  27  f. 

2,  37.  38.  6,  7.  8. 

10,  12.  22 

„ in  Pergamon 

8,  16 

Mandelbaum  im  Attiskult 

4,  37 

„ in  Sestos 

1,  6.  7 

Metrologie  1,22.  6,  31  f.  9,  53  f.  11,35 

Goldmonopol  der  Perserkbnige 

7,  35 

Mischwesen,  tierische  7,  3.  4.  5.  6.  7. 

8.  20.  27.  29 

Gorgoneion  7,  10.  11,  24. 

31. 

9,  39 

Chimaira 

7,  5.  8 

Fliigelpferd(-Vorderteil)  5,  10  tf. 

12,  1 ff.  9. 

Hakenkreuzform  des  Quadratum  incusum 

12,  3 

17.  23  ff.  29 

Heiligtiimer  der  Stadt  Elis 

8,  24 

Greif  3,  Iff.  6,19.20.  7,  6.8.12.27.29,2.  9,39 

Homonoia-Miinzen  von 

Hippokamp 

7,  11.  21 

Adramytion  und  Ephesos 

5,  13 

Pegasos  5,  14. 

7,  13.  8,  5 

Ephesos  und  Smyrna 

2,  7 

menschlich-tierische  s.  unter  III 

Hierapolis  und  Sardeis 

8,  21 

Monopolisierung, 

Kibyra  und  Epbesos 

2,  15 

athenische,  der  Silberpragung  7,  35. 

9,41.  12,21 

Kyme  und  Myrina 

2,  5 

persische,  der  Edelmetallpragung 

7,  35.  9,  38 

Kyzikos  und  Smyrna 

10,  24 

Motiv  des  aufgestiitzten  FuBes 

1,  21 

Laodikeia  und  Ephesos 

6,  11 

MunzfuB,  s.  Wahrung 

Mytilene  und  Pergamon  2,  26. 

27. 

8,  16 

Pergamon  und  Ephesos  2,  22. 

23. 

26.  27 

Negerkopf  in  Athen 

12,  10,1 

„ „ Nikomedeia 

2, 

22.  23 

„ in  Delphoi 

12,  10,1 

Smyrna  und  Ankyra  Abbaitis 

2,  12 

s.  auch  unter  Beizeichen 

„ „ Asia  (Provinz) 

2,  11 

„ „ Ephesos 

2,  7 

Odyssee 

5,  2 

„ „ Miletos 

2,  7 

Ohrdarstellung  bei  Doppelkopfen 

12,  7 

„ „ Nikomedeia 

2,  11 

Ohrschmuck,  ionischer 

12,  7.  8.  20 

„ „ Pergamon 

2,  11 

„ kyprischer  12 

, 7.  8.  9.  20 

„ „ Perinthos 

2,  10 

'OlviiTua  in  Beroia  (Makedonien)  1,  24.  25.  26.  27 

„ „ Philadelpheia 

2,  11 

„ in  Pergamon  (Mysien) 

2,  31,  1 

7 


46 


Register  zu  Nomisrna  I — XII. 


Olympia’s  Tempelmiinzen  8,  23  if.  9,  Iff.  11,  Iff. 
Agyptischer  EinfluB  8,  41.  42 

Beizeichen ; 

Ahre  8,  59 

Axt  8,  52.  59 

Blatt  11,  29 

Blitz  9,  19.  21—23.  25—31.  11,  23.  28.  30 

„ , seine  obere  Halfte  11,  30 

Eidechse  9,  13 

Epbeublatt  9,  3 

Feigenblatt  11,  29.  30 

Getreidekorn  8,  60.  59 

Granatapfel,  aufgeschnitten  11,  29 

Kerykeion  11,  18.  28 

Kranz  9,  32 

Lorbeerkranz  9,  30 

Muschel  8,  50.  59 

Olive  mit  Blattern  8,  50.  59 

Olivenblatt  8,  48.  56 

Olivenkranz  9,  25.  26.  27 

Olivenzweig  8,  60.  63 

Purpurschnecke  8,  51.  59 

Reiher  8,  51.  59 

Vase,  zweilienklige  8,  59- 

Weinblatt  8,  50.  59 

Weinrebe  11,  30 

Weintraube  11,  30 

Blitz,  seine  verschiedenen  Formen  11,  31—35 
Fliegengestalt  der  unteren  Halfte  9.  2.  10. 

11,  33 

Epigraphisches  9,  20.  11,  12.  13 

erstes  Erscheinen  des  £l  9,  20.  11,  13 
Graffiti  9,  6.  16.  11,  7 

Hera-Miinzstatte  eroffnet  9,  9.  14.  11,  1.9.  12 

„ „ geschlossen  9,  24.  28.  11,  31 

Kiinstlersignaturen  8,  55.  56.  64.  9,  10.  11. 

11,  9 10.  16.  27.  29 
Miinzbeamte  8,  56.  9,  21.  27.  11,  16.  17 
Olympiade,  77.  (472  vor  Chr.)  8,  42 

„ 82.  (452  vor  Cbr.)  8,  43.  59 

„ 87.  (432  vor  Chr.)  8,  59.  60 

„ 90.  (420  vor  Chr.)  8,  60 

„ 104.  (364  vor  Chr.)  8,25.  9,  15.20,3 

„ 114  (324  vor  Chr.)  11,  38,6 

Pragebetrieb  9,  11.  12.  18.  11,  9.  28 

Restitutionen  8,  24.  43  9,  32.  33 

Ruiidscbild,  worauf  der  Adler  9,  7.  12,  3 

„ worauf  der  Adlerkopf  9,  7.  12 
tiberpragungen  8,  30.  34.  61 

Opbiogenen  in  Parion  6,  7 

Orgeoneninschrift  vom  Piraeus  4,  37 


Pelta,  Schild  der  Amazonen 


Pentagramm  am  Helmkessel  der  Athena  12,  20 

Persisches  Gold  in  Griechenland  9,  15 

Portratkopf  auf  Kupfermiinzen  v.  Abdera  3,  27  f. 
Portratkopfe  auf  kyzikenischen  Elektronstateren 

7,  14.  21.  31  f. 

Preiskronen  5,  39.  6,  2 

Priestertum  des  Konigs  Attalos  1,  2.  4 

Restitution  alterer  Typen  8,  24,  s 

Ringgeld  in  Babylonien  5,  7.  8 

Romernamen  babylonischer  Herkunft  5,  7 

Sicilische  Miinzglyptik  1,  18.  19.  7,  30.  9,  43.  44 
Silbergeld  in  Sestos  1,  4,  i 

Silberpragung  durch  A then  monopolisiert  7,  35. 

9,  41.  45.  12,  21 
„ von  den  Perserkonigen  zugestanden 
9,  41.  12,  21.  27 
Silensmaske  als  Rs.-Typus  in  Abdera  3,  25 
Stadtwappen-Frage  1,  13 

Stempelausbesserung  6,  30,  i.  8,  64.  9,  11.  12. 

11,  10.  17.  27 

Stempelkoppelungen  1,  14.  8,  27.  9,  11.  27 
Stempelschneidergesellscbaften,  private  1,  27. 

5,  11.  16i  1.  12,  26 
Stempelumarbeitung  1,  27 

Stempelverletzungen  1,  14  f.  9,  10  f.  12.  21. 

' 11,  10.  27.  28 


Tanzgesten  der  Tragodie 
Taurobolicn 


3,  21 

4,  35.  39.  40 


Umpragungen  10,  3.  5.  12,  25.  28.  29.  30 

unguenjum  oenanthinum  (Balsam  aus  der  Traube 
des  wilden  Weinstocks)  von  Adramytion  5,  19 


V ergleichende  Metrologie 


6,  32 


1,  28 


Wagenrennen  mit  Viergespannen 
Wahruugen ; 

aginetische  11,  35,3.  36.  37 

chiische  12,  28 

euboisch-attische  9,  50.  51.  12,  4.  22.  29.  30 

lampsakenische  12,  4.  14.  22.  28 

milesische  12,  4 5.  14,  i 

olympische  9,  15.  31.  32.  11,  35  ff. 

persische  9,  41.  51 . 12,  14.  22.  28 

phokaische  7,  34 

rhodische  9,  51.  12,  27 

Windmuhlenfliigelform  des  Quadratum  incusum 
7,  2.  4.  7.  9,  35.  12,  2.  3 


2,  17  I Zopftracbt 


4,  20.  7,  25 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 

Gruppe  I (1-11).  — Gruppe  II  (12-31).  — Athen  (11a.  32-43). 


Tafel  II. 


Die  Silberpragung  von  Lampsakos. 

Gruppe  III  (1-34).  — Gruppe  IV  (33-41).  — Gruppe  V (42-45). 


\ ‘ 
- 9 

• 


Ti) 


\ 

rf 


GETTV  raiEfi  LIBBARy 

CJ  245  B84  C.2  - 


3 3125  00272  0957 


■L. 


pL  i^ 


